MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and
Innovation, that Bill 22, Status Of The Artist Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

This
motion is carried.

CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, Status Of The Artist Act. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.

On
motion, a bill, “Status Of The Artist Act,” read a third time, ordered passed
and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House
Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, for leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, Bill 23,
and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation shall have
leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act,
Bill 23, and that the said bill shall now be read a first time.

Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

This
motion is carried.

Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a
bill, “An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act,” carried. (Bill 23)

CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a
first time.

When
shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On
motion, Bill 23 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House
Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 25.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.

Is the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

This
motion is carried.

On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.

Committee of the
Whole

CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!

We are
considering Bill 25, the Prescription Monitoring Act, and we are debating the
third amendment in clause 4.

CHAIR: Shall the motion carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

Carried.

On
motion, clause 4 carried.

CLERK: Clause 5.

CHAIR: Clause 5.

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

Carried.

On
motion, clause 5 carried.

CLERK: Clause 6.

CHAIR: Clause 6.

Shall
the motion carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

Carried.

On
motion, clause 6 carried.

CLERK: Clause 7.

CHAIR: Clause 7.

Shall
the motion carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

Carried.

On
motion, clause 7 carried.

CLERK: Clause 8.

CHAIR: Clause 8.

Shall
the motion carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

Carried.

On
motion, clause 8 carried.

CLERK: Clause 9.

CHAIR: Clause 9.

Shall
the motion carry?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On
motion, clause 9 carried.

CLERK: Clause 10.

CHAIR: Clause 10.

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's an
honour again as we move through the prescription monitoring bill here to propose
the following amendment.

Subsection 10(2) of the bill is deleted and the following substituted: Upon the
request of the minister, a prescriber, dispenser or other person shall disclose
to the minister any information the minister reasonably requires to determine
compliance with the act or the misuse, abuse or diversion of monitoring drugs.

Mr.
Speaker, we present that as an amendment.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
Committee will recess to consider the amendment.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
amendment is said to be in order.

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again,
in accordance with the whole conversation we've had in the last couple of days,
particularly on this act here, we're very supportive of the act. We're very
supportive of the intent and very supportive of helping move it forward.

Our
amendments are just to – if there's a particular gap that's identified there or
if there's some vagueness in the wording, to ensure it's more prescribed and it
meets the particular needs it was set out to do. What we noted here was just
that at times it could be sensed there might be a little bit of vagueness in the
wording, little broader than people would particularly like, a little bit open
ended. So the suggestion here was to change the language a little bit, to
tighten it up a bit, to keep it in line with the compliance of what the act was
all about and to ensure there's a better ability to identify misuse, abuse and
diversion of the monitoring drug system.

Mr.
Chair, we're putting this forward as an amendment, hoping we'll get support from
other Members of the House here to help move along a good piece of legislation
and entrench that in so it meets the particular needs and the outcome put
forward.

Thank
you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

I
welcome the Member opposite's comments about being supportive of the principles
of the legislation because, certainly, as I said the other day, we do have a
significant issue on our hands; however, the phrasing of the preceding
paragraphs and this particular section under consideration is in actual fact,
when read together, fairly specific in that it requires reasonably necessary
related to the objects of the act which are stipulated as being misuse of
monitored drugs, appropriate prescribing and dispensing.

The
authority is only required for those non-compliant situations where there's been
a flag around a prescription. I think, bearing in mind my colleague's comments,
I would respectfully disagree and suggest that the wording, as it stands at the
moment, adequately addresses those concerns.

It is a
key component of the program. I feel that the wording, as it exists at the
moment, speaks closely to that. So I would respectfully suggest that the clause
stay as it is currently worded.

Thank
you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

I stand
to support the amendment because I think every clause should have specifics in
it that make the point of the clause clear.

I hear
what the Minister of Health and Community Services is saying, but I also agree
with the amendment. I do agree with the amendment because I do think it is
important to say what the compliance is all about. The misuse, abuse or
diversion of monitored drugs is what it's about.

I think
a section should be able to be understood on its own and not have to be referred
back to another section to be understood. I think this does make it clearer, and
I'm sorry the minister doesn't think that clearer language is necessary.

Thank
you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands.

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just
want to say for the record that I also support the amendment that's been brought
forward. I think one of the concerns we've heard from physicians, the NLMA and
so on, is they feel the way this bill is currently written that it can be much
more far reaching than perhaps is what is intended. I think this amendment
clarifies specifically the issue in this particular clause, and specifically
what we're talking about in terms of these monitored drugs and so on.

I do
appreciate what the minister is saying. If you tie it all back and you read it
all in context, one can interpret what the intent is, and I'm sure that is the
intent, but anything we can do to add clarity, to allay any fears that are there
that this could go much further and broader than is intended, then I think we
would be much better off to do that. I'm sure it would put at ease the minds of
the professionals that are going to be impacted by this. For that reason, I
support the amendment.

Thank
you.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the
Committee to adopt the amendment?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Defeated.

On
motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 10 carry?

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again,
we're making another amendment to clause 10, subclause 10(4).

Subclause 10(4) of the bill is deleted and the following substituted:

(4)
Where the minister believes on reasonable grounds that a prescriber or dispenser
has contravened the act or has aided the abuse, misuse or diversion of monitored
drugs, he or she may disclose information to the appropriate regulatory
authority about the non-compliance or the potential abuse, misuse or diversion
of the monitored drugs.

I would
like to put this forward as an amendment to 10(4).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
Committee will recess to consider the amendment.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
amendment to subclause 10(4) is said to be in order.

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again,
this follows the amendment we put forward on 10(2), regarding just clarifying
and being more prescriptive as to the responsibilities, from the minister's
point of view, when we look at the misuse, abuse and diversion under the
monitoring drug program itself.

What we
had proposed in the previous one that was defeated is similar here; we just want
to prescribe it. These are conversations that we had with particularly the
Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, and they support the concept of
the bill here. They support most of the clauses that are here but, in some
cases, similar to here and the discussion that we had it made sense; they want
it to be more explicit and spelled out so there's no misinterpretation, so it
makes it easier for them to ensure that their members are compliant, and there
would be better indications as to if there is somebody who is misusing, abusing,
or diverting the program itself.

Again,
we propose this and ask the hon. Members opposite to give this serious
consideration because we feel this adds to the valuable piece of legislation
that is being put forward.

Thank
you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.

The
language, I would suggest, in this section 10(4) is actually very precise. But
again, it loops back to the concept of the way this bill has been drafted as a
coherent, cohesive, integral whole. It refers back to the objects of the
program. These are clearly laid out in section 3 and address the Opposition
Member's concerns. I really think that we are delving into what is really
wordsmithing rather than necessarily contributing to clarity.

So I
would suggest that the original wording should stand, Mr. Chair.

Thank
you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

I'm
standing to support this amendment. I understand when the minister says this
seems like wordsmithing but, in fact, when we're dealing with such an important
piece of legislation, wordsmithing is very, very important. Had the minister
brought this to a legislative committee to review before bringing it to the
House, perhaps we wouldn't have to do this type of detailed wordsmithing here in
the House. We do have the legislative tools to allow us to do that, to bring
this before the legislative committee.

My
concern when we're looking at some of this wordsmithing that really is very
important, that there are experts out there, for instance like the Newfoundland
and Labrador Medical Association, who had some very specific concerns, again,
around some of the words that are used and some of the specific issues covered
in this legislation.

I would
ask the minister – and I can appreciate his frustration in terms of why are we
wordsmithing – has he directly met with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical
Association about some of these specific issues since he tabled this
legislation? Has he directly met with them to address some of the issues that
they have raised? They have an incredible level of expertise in this area. That
would be my question to the minister, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands.

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just for
the record, I want to support this amendment as well. I think it's adding more
clarity. I believe that if the NLMA are requesting this – the minister says
himself it's not really changing the intent. But if it makes them more
comfortable to ensure that it's very specific about what it is that's trying to
be achieved, if it makes sense, if it's not changing the intent in any way, then
it's beyond me why the minister would not be willing to entertain some of these
amendments.

Mr.
Chair, we have another piece of legislation that's going to be coming forward.
We're going to be talking about SIRT. One of the things I know that I've heard
the Minister of Justice talk about is the fact that in that particular case, you
have a professional organization like the RNC, like the RCMP, and they want the
scrutiny. They want to have those mechanisms in place to ensure the integrity of
their members.

I'm sure
that physicians are no different. The physicians, the pharmacists, they want to
make sure that their members are in compliance, that they don't have, as the
minister has referred to them, these rogue physicians, I believe – that's his
words, not mine. They don't want rogue physicians; they don't want anybody doing
anything wrong. It's in their best interests that we have good rules in place to
hold all their members accountable.

We need
to be working with them, not against them. If they have suggested these minor
amendments that makes them more comfortable, that gets them more engaged and on
board with what we're doing here, and if the minister has said that we're really
not changing the intent by doing it, then what's the big deal? I don't
understand it. It's like we're against it for the sake of being against it.

Anyway,
that's my commentary and I'll support the amendment.

Thank
you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Yes, Mr. Chair, also I
believe that it's very important to be very prescriptive in this legislation
because the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association has stated their
concern that rather than being heavily weighted on education and prevention,
that this piece of legislation seems very, very heavily weighted on punishments,
so to say enforcement, rather than education and behaviour change.

Now, the
Minister of Health and Community Services, the day before yesterday, said in the
House that doctors don't like change. Well, I believe our doctors do like change
and the doctors are having a really hard time dealing with, for instance, the
opioid crisis in our province.

One
other issue that was raised by the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association
is that many doctors will say, you know what, I'm not going to deal with
opioids. I'm not going to prescribe them at all because it's too complicated.

I'm
concerned about how this legislation will impact their practice. So I believe it
is very important to be very specific about the far-reaching possibilities of
the ministry and of the Newfoundland and Labrador Health and Information Centre.
It is very important to be as clear as possible so it doesn't create an
unnecessary freeze or a climate of confusion or a climate of fear by medical
professionals, because opioids need to be used in some cases.

The
other issue I'm very concerned about, Mr. Chair, and that I would like the
minister to respond to is the number of people whose doctors may stop
prescribing opioids. Now, some people may be in a circle of addiction with their
opioid use or have a heavy reliance on opioids. How many doctors – because folks
are coming to me in my district saying that their doctors are saying: I am not
prescribing opioids anymore, don't even bother coming to me about opioids. So
the doctors are also trying to find ways to help with people who may need help
with detox and with changing their habits on drug use.

Mr.
Chair, I'm asking the minister, what is his plan to deal with what might be an
unintended consequence of this, where people will go to the streets to get
opioids because doctors are afraid to or will no longer prescribe them, but are
at a loss as to how to help their patients get off an opioid addiction, and we
know the street drugs are far more dangerous?

So, Mr.
Chair, I believe that relates somewhat to this particular subclause. Again, we
cannot create an atmosphere where doctors feel they cannot do their practice
responsibly for fear of a big heavy stick.

Thank
you.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the
Committee to adopt the amendment?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On
motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 10 carry?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

Carried.

On
motion, clause 10 carried.

CLERK: Clause 11.

CHAIR: Clause
11.

Shall the clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.

CHAIR: All those
against?

Carried.

On motion, clause 11 carried.

CLERK: Clause
12.

CHAIR: Clause
12.

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again,
we're making an amendment here to the act itself under clause 12, subclause
12(1).

Subclause 12(1) of the bill is amended by deleting the words and comma “for a
purpose related to the administration or enforcement of this Act or the
regulations,” and by substituting the following words and commas: “where the
inspector believes on reasonable grounds that a person is in contravention of
this Act or the regulations, and where information requested under section 10(2)
has not been provided.”

Mr.
Speaker, we put this forward as an amendment to clause 12, subsection 12(1).

CHAIR: Order, please!

I will
recess the Committee and we'll consider the amendment.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

We're
looking at subclause 12(1). The amendment is not in order.

Shall
clause 12 carry?

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

Again, I
would like to speak to clause 12. It is really about the power of inspections. I
believe that it's really important to be very specific here. We all know what a
critical bill this is and it is important to be specific. I would like to bring
forth, once again, the concerns that were raised by both the Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner and the concerns that were raised by the
Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association.

I was
quite surprised, in fact, when I last spoke, I raised some specific issues
asking the minister very specific questions and he had not responded. So I would
hope that, once again, he would respond. It is so very important to have this
legislation as specific as it needs to be in order to not have the unintended
consequences of prohibiting or discouraging doctors, physicians or other
prescribers from their full scope of practice because of what may seem to them
as lack of clarity in a piece of legislation.

I'm
concerned about the lack of consultation through the legislative tools that we
have available here in the House through legislative review committees, but also
I'm concerned that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has a
very specific concern about how this will impact people's privacy and what that
means for the powers that it gives inspectors, that an inspector can go into the
office of a medical professional and search those premises – that's a great
concern – and on the basis of what, on the basis of perhaps opioids?

Maybe
some people will see the real concern about misuse and abuse of opioids,
particularly in prescribing because it does cause a crisis and has far-reaching
ramifications in our province. What about other drugs that the minister may deem
as important to include under monitoring, whether it be antibiotics? It's a
concern that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has raised.

The
concern also that office raised was the lack of time for full consultation. I
would ask the minister if he would consider calling the Privacy Commissioner to
the House to speak to Committee to really clearly articulate what are his
concerns and how will they be addressed?

I would
ask the minister, again, has he, himself, met with the Privacy Commissioner
about the very specific concerns that he has raised? We can't support this
legislation without addressing those very, very critical concerns.

The
Privacy Commissioner, that office, is for the benefit of the people of the
province and for the benefit of all of us making laws here in this House. I
would ask him about how is he responding to those issues but, more importantly,
will he call and invite the Privacy Commissioner to this Committee to speak to
the issues that they have raised?

These
similar issues have been raised by the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical
Association. I ask the minister: In the interest of making the best possible
legislation that we can, that affects a crucial and critical issue in our
province, will he ask – will he invite the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical
Association to come and speak to this House during Committee to discuss the
issues that they have raised?

The
minister has said that he has consulted with some of these organizations.
There's an international leader in public participation. It is the International
Association for Public Participation. They have some core values for the
practice of public participation. Those core values include – first of all,
public participation is based on the belief that those who are affected by a
decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process. I believe
that everybody believes that here. That's what our democracy is about.

It also
says, then, that government may say we met with someone last January or we had a
brief conversation or we had a meeting, but in order to do that full circle of
participation and consultation, otherwise it's meaningless, that their core
value number seven is public participation communicates to participants how
their impact affected the decision.

We don't
know what government has done with the consultation that they say they have done
with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association or what they have done
with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Because they are
absolute experts in their two particular fields, whether it be information and
privacy and the medical field. It is essential that before this legislation is
passed that these outstanding issues that they have raised, coming out of their
expertise, that we hear from them and know that they have been taken seriously,
that all consideration has been given to these specific issues that they raised
and that we all need to hear from them and make sure that the specific issues
that they have raised are satisfied according to this House and are satisfied
according to the very serious issues that they have, particularly the Privacy
Commissioner.

The
government is not required to absolutely take his recommendations, but I believe
as a House of Assembly who are considering legislation that we are morally
required to really seriously consider the issues that he has raised because it
comes from an office of expertise – expertise that the people of the province
are paying for, not to be taken lightly, not to be ignored.

Once
again, Mr. Chair, the expertise that comes out of the Newfoundland and Labrador
Medical Association, to ignore the issues that have been raised, to not address
them sufficiently would be a huge error on our part.

Thank
you very much. I would ask again the minister to stand and respond to these
questions. They are not hostile questions; they are questions that have come out
of a desire on our behalf, of our caucus, to ensure that this legislation is the
best it possibly could be.

Thank
you very much.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

I draw
your attention to clause 60(2) concerning discussions in Committee of the Whole
about items being strictly relevant to the item or clause under discussion. So
having granted the Member opposite considerable leeway in rambling off this
subject, I hope you'll allow me the same courtesy.

To join
the dots for the Member opposite, this act is to deal with an opioid crisis. It
may interest the Member that the magnitude of this crisis is such that every
man, woman and child in this province, effectively, is getting eight days'
supply of opioids each year. Eight days for every man, woman and child
prescribed in this province. That's the problem.

The bulk
of this act, in its principle, and the objects are quite clearly set out, is
around education. The remainder of the act is designed to deal with a smaller
group of rogue individuals who have traditionally been non-compliant and
problematic and are responsible, quite frankly, for deaths in this province, Mr.
Chair. The reason there is so much emphasis on this and the reason we have gone
down this road is because of previous issues with a very small group of people
who have caused us significant grief on this very topic.

So the
emphasis on the act has to be to deal with those kinds of issues simply because,
with all the loopholes that exist currently, they're getting off. These people
are not being held to account. To paraphrase, again, the bulk of physicians,
prescribers and dispensers in this province are responsible individuals who are
practising to the highest standards.

I
propose to deal briefly with two comments that the Member opposite made and then
I'm going to ask this House to support this clause in its entirety. The first
comment relates to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. First
fact: No information that is currently private in a personal health record will
be any different thereafter. It's not going out on the internet with peoples'
names plastered all over it, and to try and suggest such with this hyperbole,
supplied by the Medical Association, is fear mongering at its best.

The
Privacy Commissioner was on the phone with my staff after this bill was read
into the House in first reading. Public knowledge, publicly available, he was
speaking with my staff and, less than 24 hours later, he's out in the media
saying something completely different. Ask him that question, not me. As far as
the NLMA is concerned, the NLMA are an advocacy group designed to foster and
protect the interests of their members and I commend them for that.

The
driver behind this, however, is a group that the Members opposite have declined
to even mention, which is a College of Physicians and Surgeons of Newfoundland
and Labrador. They are the regulators of physicians. The ARNL, the regulators of
nurses, are similarly driving this.

The
Member opposite referenced the RNC, referenced law enforcement. They are keen on
this. This is not new. We are the last province to get in here. This is the
fourth such jurisdiction to have stand-alone legislation. We are not inventing
anything. We are not going off into the woods here. We are using guidelines,
acts that have been drafted in other provinces, which have been crafted to fit
the regulatory and legal framework of this jurisdiction, and they have been run
through Legislative Counsel.

To
suggest in this House that somehow the people in Legislative Counsel – either in
the Department of Health or in the Office of the Legislative Counsel, or
anywhere in government, have not done their job is really disingenuous and,
quite frankly, offensive.

So
basically, I hope you will grant the same latitude under the Standing Orders
that you granted the Member opposite because really and honestly this is not
particularly relevant to clause 12 or the items therein.

I'm
going to sit down and take my seat again and commend to this House that we
support this section.

Thank
you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

If the
Member opposite wants a ruling on a point of order, then why didn't he call a
point of order? Number one, the Member for St. John's Centre spoke specifically
to the content of the clause – specifically to the content – to concerns that
have been raised about the content of the clause and why those concerns are not
being paid attention to.

So I
really object to the minister making a ruling on his feet. That is a ruling you
should be making. If he wanted to do that, why didn't he call a point of order?

Thank
you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall
clause 12 carry?

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS: My apology, Mr. Chair.

I
thought I heard the Member rise on a point of order.

CHAIR: The Chair did not rule on a
point of order from the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services. There
was no point of order.

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I
thought when she rose she said she rose on a point of order.

CHAIR: There was no point of order.

MR. P. DAVIS: Mr. Chair, it's interesting
to listen to the minister opposite and the debate here this morning becoming
somewhat testy on a very important piece of legislation. He likes to raise and
talk about – not likes to, but he did. He actually rose and spoke to Standing
Order 60(2): “Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to
the items or clause under consideration.” And then he went on and talked about a
whole bunch of other things.

So if
it's fine for him to do it, then it should be fine for everyone else in the
House to do it as well, which we'll do and I appreciate the latitude, Mr. Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

MR. P. DAVIS: Then he did it himself.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Section
12 is a very important section. It relates to two other sections, including 11
and to 13. Section 12 is about the powers of an inspector and compliance. We
live in a society where there has to be restrictions put on those who are
enforcing laws and rules, and as the minister referred to law enforcement. It's
not only police, but if an inspector is enforcing this law, once it becomes law,
then that inspector is also acting in a position of law enforcement.

Mr.
Chair, there are very strict rules in Canada and very strong restrictions on the
rights of law enforcement. There are laws in Canada which prevent law
enforcement and people in the role of law enforcement from walking in any
premises they feel like, whenever they like, to inspect books and records.

Now, the
concerns raised to us – I don't have the benefit of a career in medicine as the
minister does and I respect his years of service and his experience, but doctors
have raised concerns directly to me, personally. Not just the NLMA, who I did
meet with and they raised concerns, but doctors themselves have raised concerns
to me, personally, about these powers. So it's not just the Newfoundland and
Labrador Medical Association. There are doctors in this province who have raised
those concerns directly about inspectors, about the inspection powers or powers
of an inspector.

Under
the act, the minister can appoint an inspector, or as it's worded here “a
custodian or an employee of a custodian under the Personal Health Information
Act to act as an inspector ….” If you go to section 13, it talks about: “An inspector shall prepare a report which sets out the findings and
results of the inspection.” I talked about this in second reading, Mr. Chair.

The minister may
share the findings and results of an inspection, it says in paragraph (2). It
doesn't directly and pointedly say that the inspector shall file the report with
the minister, but it's presumed because the section says the minister may share
the findings. So the minister has to know what the findings are. The report has
to be filed with the minister. There's no other direction I see here as to how
the inspector or where the inspector files the report.

The powers given
to those inspectors appointed by the minister are very clear: for the purpose
related to administration or enforcement of this act may inspect and examine the
premises, processes, books and so on of a person that the inspector considers
relevant for the purpose of determining compliance with the act.

Mr.
Chair, that's very broad powers – very, very broad powers. It doesn't even
contain, as we raised in a proposed amendment, reasonable, probable grounds.
That's an accepted principle in law in Canada for someone engaged in a form of
law enforcement to have reasonable, probable grounds to do the work they do or
to make an allegation.

In most
cases if you want to do an inspection, you are required to get a warrant or some
type of a court order to do that inspection. We weren't asking for that in an
amendment. We are not asserting that should be the case here, but at the very
least there should be reasonable, probable grounds.

Doctors
have said to me: This is a problem for me and my practice. I'm concerned about
the privacy of my patients. Does this allow anyone to come in, essentially any
time, to my office and carry out inspections of my files and my records of my
patients? And they've expressed concern over that. His own colleagues,
physicians in this province, have directly expressed concern, outside of the
NLMA or not associated to the NLMA. That's why this section is of particular
importance.

The
section could even say in exigent circumstances, which is sometimes used in law.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I am familiar with exigent circumstances,
broadening the powers of law enforcement if there's urgency, if there's a rush,
there's something pressing, there's a reason why this needs to be done right
away. Even in exigent circumstances it can be a variety of things, but sometimes
the rules are not proper for what's happening at the time and there's a reason
why that should happen. The person who is doing the inspection, if there were
exigent circumstances, could define that and defend that, but that doesn't exist
here.

It
simply says: at reasonable times, for a purpose related to the administration or
enforcement. Even for just the administration of the act, they can walk into an
office, actually anywhere – because it says books or records of a person that
the inspector may consider relevant.

Mr.
Chair, that's a pretty broad term. That's a very, very, very broad term. You can
walk in and inspect records of a person and you can do that – not being in a
dwelling, that's laid out there, not in someone's home, but you can walk into an
office virtually anywhere of someone who might be engaged or have records
regarding drugs that are being monitored and examine them.

I don't
know; maybe a reporter does a story and says sources say that this is happening
or sources say this. Well, under this, maybe the inspector can just walk into
those premises and do an inspection of those books and records. Is that what I'm
reading here? I'm sure that's not the intent, but we don't know what
circumstances may happen down the road. We don't know what a future minister may
decide.

I'm not,
as I've said before, alleging that this current minister, that's his intent, but
maybe a minister down the road utilizes that rule or that law in a way that it
wasn't intended. That's why we have to be careful when we write laws, to make
sure they are used the way they are intended, that they protect people's basic
rights, they protect the best interests of doctors who are fearful about
continuing the practice as they do in prescribing opioids or drugs or whatever
drug may be monitored, and they've expressed that concern.

We have
to make sure the law is proper. I cannot be more sincere than I am here right at
this very moment to say this particular section, of all sections in this bill,
is a concern to me and Members on this side of the House.

Mr.
Chair, we're not asking for the world here and we're not asking for a battle;
we're just asking for an opportunity for improvement. I believe there's room for
improvement in the best interests of not only doctors and pharmacies, but for
patients and to protect future government and inspectors who will have to
conduct themselves according to this legislation. I believe it would be a good
move and the right thing for the government to reconsider this and to see if
they can reword this so that it better describes the intention of that
particular section.

Thank
you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

I'm
happy again to speak to this particular clause. I'd also like to speak to the
issues that the minister raised after I spoke the last time where he said I
rambled on and on and on, and that don't I know that there's an opioid crisis.

Yes, I
do know. Mr. Chair; everybody in this House knows there's an opioid crisis.
Every person in this province knows that there's an opioid crisis. We all know
that. We all know how urgent this is. We are not asking for unusual changes or
considerations to this particular clause; we are asking to make it the best that
we possibly can.

Now, I
see the minister's frustration. Maybe he's more interested in an autocracy
rather than a democracy. For him to say –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS. ROGERS: For him to say that all this
is, is just simply rambling –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. Member. I ask for all Members'
co-operation.

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

In fact,
what we are doing here today is what we have been asked to do. This is what we
have been elected to do. Unfortunately, this government has chosen not to use
the proper legislative tools that we have and not bring it to committee before
introducing this legislation to the House, and not doing real consultation.

The most
viable experts in our province are saying that there are some outstanding issues
and to not consider that, Mr. Chair, is an absolute waste. I don't understand
it. I'm concerned that these – he, basically again, called into question what
the Privacy Commissioner has said and done and what the Newfoundland and
Labrador Medical Association has done. I believe that their intention is to make
this the best possible legislation that it can be to deal with that incredible
opioid crisis that we are facing – not good enough.

Mr.
Chair, the minister has said that they have done a jurisdictional scan. One of
the questions that I have is: With the results of their jurisdictional scan, is
it as broad ranging in other jurisdictions as our particular legislation is? I'm
not so sure. Ours may have more problems, maybe more far, broad ranging and
could be a problem. So that's what's being raised here. It's not about rambling.
It's not about grandstanding. It's not about anything except trying to make this
– this is about –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS. ROGERS: – trying to make this the
best possible legislation it can be.

I would
like to hear from the minister about other jurisdictions, whether they have such
broad search powers as what are being proposed here in his particular piece of
legislation. I'd also like to acknowledge the work that has been done by our
legal experts in government who've worked hard on this particular piece of
legislation, but this is the work that we have been elected to do on behalf of
the people and we have to get this one right. This is the opportunity to make it
the best that it possibly can be.

Thank
you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.

MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

With regard to clause 12, I would like to hear from the
minister the specifics of what it is they are talking about in this clause when
it says: “An
inspector may, at all reasonable times, for a purpose related to the
administration or enforcement of this Act or the regulations, inspect or examine
the premises, processes, books and records of a person that the inspector may
consider relevant for the purpose of determining compliance with this Act or the
regulations ….”

When it
comes to prescriptions and when it comes to the role of physicians and the role
of dispensers, there are electronic records that must be, at all times, accurate
and which can be accessed at any time with regard to prescription and with
regard to dispensing. So I'm wondering what it is the government is thinking
they are looking for when these inspections happen, when we have a system in
place that holds physicians and those who dispense accountable for everything.

What is
it they're looking for? This is what I want to know, because it looks like it's
just a hunt for something. What is that based on? Is it based on the fact that
the records don't look accurate or there's some reason to think the records
aren't accurate that we already have access to?

I would
like some explanation from the minister with regard to that point.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

Maybe
if I just explain a little bit about how the process works. The challenge is
when going through a piece of legislation like this – which describes a program,
which is a process – we are taking little bits in isolation when this is an
integrated whole. I think if I just step back for a minute and paint a picture
it may answer some of the concerns of both the Leader of the Opposition and the
interim Leader of the Third Party.

Essentially, the Prescription Monitoring Program as it is envisaged in the
future will be, as the Member opposite says, a real-time exercise. The challenge
at the moment is that there are a considerable number of physicians who, whilst
they have the ability to interact or will have the ability to interact with the
Pharmacy Network real time, their records are paper based. They still rely on
control drugs, narcotics books for those practices where they dispense as well
as prescribe; although, just for the record, physicians now are no longer
allowed to dispense. I'm referring to some of the clinics maybe on the North
Coast.

So if
you then go through the process of the program working, at some point a
patterned behaviour or an incident would arise, flagged through the system that
would be out of the ordinary. It would be unusual. The idea then is that flagged
episode would generate a request from the program administrators to the people
involved to say: look, this is unusual, we're not quite sure what it means,
could you explain it? Could you – if you're a prescriber – clarify why you wrote
X pills for Y months on this particular prescription, or why the dispenser
handed out medication in that way? Ninety-nine times, or maybe even 999 times
out of 1,000, that response will be forthcoming and there will be a dialogue
between the administrator of the program and the clinicians involved.

What you
then move into is the challenge of the situation where – we have heard already
there are situations where behaviour is unusual and not easily explained. In the
event that the participant in the process declined several requests from the
program, reasonable requests, there would be an option here for that material to
be gathered without consent of the person involved. It would be done in a way
with people and individuals who were designated under the
Personal Health Information Act as
custodians. It's ring-fenced and it is within the constraints of this act and
also within the constraints of fear.

This
would then allow an inspector to access paper charts, paper books, records of
relevance only. The wording of this section is only for compliance with the
objects of this act. It is not enabling anyone to go on a fishing expedition.
This is particularly and totally constrained to the objects of the act. Again,
you have to step back from this clause and go back to section 3 and the other
leading sections which explain the ecosystem, if you like, of this.

So just
to answer some other questions, Nova Scotia has much broader regulation and
acts. The college there is the person or the group who deal with this and
they're deluged. Quite frankly, their advice was somehow you need to ring-fence
this. We, as regulators, don't want to see every bit of information that comes
through. We're only interested in behaviour of concern or behaviour where there
may be some professional issues.

On the
other hand, if you look at Ontario, and the reason the wording in our act
differs slightly from Ontario is that their legal system differs in two ways:
one is they have a different approach to drafting legislation and the second
thing is they have a completely different approach in terms of the way the
regulation system works. They have had a prescription monitoring program by
another name in place since 2010 and they have yet to have an inspector do an
inspection.

Just for
the sake of context for that, Mr. Chair, Ontario houses a third of all of
Canada's physicians. This is not something that's going to happen every five
minutes. If it hasn't happened with 33,000 doctors in seven years in a very
urbanized environment, I'm not sure that we're dealing with a problem of any
great frequency.

Once
again, Mr. Chair, I would recommend, most strongly, that given the way this bill
has been written, given the way each of these sections tie together as integral
pieces of a puzzle, that this section should pass Committee.

Thank
you.

CHAIR: Shall clause 12 carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

Carried.

On
motion, clause 12 carried.

CLERK: Clause 13.

CHAIR: Clause 13.

Shall
the clause carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

Carried.

On
motion, clause 13 carried.

CLERK: Clause 14.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As we're
going through the process here of putting amendments forward, getting some
clarification, having good debate and outlining exactly the agencies and
organizations who have advised us, who we've consulted with, who have given us
different perspectives on how we can improve this bill, the holistic intent here
is that we have a piece of legislation that meets the particular needs and
strives to actually achieve what it was set out to do.

What
we're proposing here: Subclause 14(1) of the bill is amended by deleting the
words “that are referred to them by the minister.”

The
amendment to subclause 14 of the bill would be done as such: The bill be amended
by deleting the words “that are referred to them by the minister.”

I
present that, Mr. Chair, for review.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
Committee will recess to consider the amendment.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

We're
looking into the amendment of subclause 14(1).

The
amendment is not in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Shall clause 14 carry?

The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

I would
like to ask the minister: What exactly is the role and purpose of this committee
and what would they be examining or advising on; and if they're advising, what
would be the materials that they would be advising on?

Thank
you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE: Thank you very much for the
question.

This
committee would be, if you like, a form of practice audit. The intent of this
committee is that it would examine the materials submitted in response to a
request for information, or in a case where compliance had been an issue with
any inspection.

For
example, if there was a prescription that was unusual in some way, the
information had been supplied by the prescriber or dispenser, then this
information would go to this group. They would then make a determination as to
how this fitted in with a clinical scenario. This is a matter of professional
practice and best standards; it is not a matter of administration. That is why
this clause is constituted the way it is. It allows a committee to be struck and
also then stipulates if such a committee has to be stuck, then this will be a
consideration in its composition.

The
reason it's phrased in a conditional is that given the frequency with which such
events might occur, it's totally unknown as to whether or not you would need to
have such a body there the entire time, as it were; and the other thing is that
it's phrased in such a way that it would be a contextual committee. So, for
example, if the issue was around dental prescribing, the committee could be
constructed in such a way that it would have expertise to look at dental
prescribing. If it was a midwife or a nurse practitioner, then it would be
structured in such a way to look at nurse practitioners' practice.

It's not
that you would have, for example, a hospital-based pharmacist opining on a
community-based pharmacist practice. We're trying to get a peer-group approach,
which is entirely consistent with other legislation and components of other
regulatory bodies and the health professionals council and such. So I hope that
answers the question.

CHAIR: Shall clause 14 carry?

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We want
to make an amendment to clause 14(2).

Clause
14(2) of the bill is amended by adding immediately after subsection (2) the
following: Any committee that addresses within its terms of reference the
prescribing of monitored drugs shall include at least two prescribers and two
dispensers.

I have
that presented, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
Committee will recess to consider the amendment.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall
clause 14 carry?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On
motion, clause 14 carried.

CLERK: Clause 15.

CHAIR: Shall clause 15 carry?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On
motion, clause 15 carried.

CLERK: Clause 16.

CHAIR: Shall clause 16 carry?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On
motion, clause 16 carried.

CLERK: Clause 17.

CHAIR: Shall clause 17 carry?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On
motion, clause 17 carried.

CLERK: Clause 18.

CHAIR: Shall clause 18 carry?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On
motion, clause 18 carried.

CLERK: Clause 19.

CHAIR: Shall clause 19 carry?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On
motion, clause 19 carried.

CLERK: Clause 20.

CHAIR: Shall clause 20 carry?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On
motion, clause 20 carried.

CLERK: Clause 21.

CHAIR: Shall clause 21 carry?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On
motion, clause 21 carried.

CLERK: Clause 22.

CHAIR: Clause 22.

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is
the last amendment that we have to put forward. Clause 22 of the bill is amended
by adding in paragraph 22(d) immediately before the word “respecting,” the words
and comma “for the purposes of sections 7 and 8 of the act.”

We
present it as an amendment to clause 22, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

We will
recess the Committee to consider the amendment.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper): The hon. the Member for
Baie Verte – Green Bay, Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

MR. WARR: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When
shall the report be received? Now?

MS. COADY: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the Committee have
leave to sit again?

MS. COADY: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On
motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with
provisional Standing Order 9(1)(b), the House is in recess until 2 this
afternoon.

Recess

The
House resumed at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Admit
strangers.

In the
Speaker's gallery today, I'd like to recognize Mr. Jim Lester, MHA elect for the
District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also in the Speaker's
gallery, I'd like to welcome Mr. Ethan Hunt. Ethan will be the subject of a
Member's statement today. He is joined by his father, Rick Hunt.

Welcome
to you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: In the public gallery, I'd
like to recognize Mr. Bruce Templeton and his wife, Paula. Mr. Templeton will be
the subject of a Member's statement today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I also see and would like to
welcome a friend and colleague of mine, Mr. Steve Gordon, from the New Brunswick
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and he's here on business. It's good to have
you here.

MR. WARR: Mr. Speaker, to live and work
in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and help promote its arts and tourism
potential has been a satisfying venture for partners Linda Yates and David
Hayashida, co-owners of King's Point Pottery.

Involved
with many tourism initiatives in the area, David was recognized as this year's
winner of the Tourism Ambassador of the Year. Both Linda and Dave have given
selflessly of their time and energy to champion the interests of this industry.
Artist and entrepreneurs working together to develop the tourism industry in
their own hometown and are infusing the industry with new ideas and
opportunities.

Mr.
Speaker, King's Point Pottery celebrated its 25th anniversary this year. It has
been a shining light in the scenic and beautiful seaside community of King's
Point since its inception.

In 2013,
it was named top craft shop in Atlantic Canada and it was also tagged as a top
shopping destination in the province on TripAdvisor for the past three years.
King's Point Pottery sells and promotes works of 365 different artists, most of
them craftspeople from Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.
Speaker, I welcome my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating David
Hayashida, Newfoundland and Labrador's Tourism Ambassador of the Year.

Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the
District of Windsor Lake.

MS. C. BENNETT: This Sunday, thousands of
families will gather for the St. John's Downtown Christmas Parade, and for one
of the parade's longest serving volunteers, so begins another marathon Christmas
season of 60 Santa visits culminating on Christmas Eve at the Janeway.

I'm so
proud to recognize Mr. Bruce Templeton.

Recognized with numerous awards for his community work, including the Red Cross
Humanitarian of the Year award, Newfoundland and Labrador Volunteer of the Year
award, as well as induction into the International Santa Claus Hall of Fame,
Bruce's passion for children is inspiring. The sale of his books featuring
beautifully moving stories about his adventures as Santa's helper has provided
Dr. Bruce Aylward of the World Health Organization funding for polio vaccines
for over 300,000 children.

At next
April's International Conference of Santa Claus in Denver, Bruce will share
those special Santa moments with a global audience.

On
behalf of the children and families from our province and around the world, join
me in thanking Mr. Bruce Templeton for four decades of work with Santa. Let's
take heed of Bruce's advice: Stop and make memories for your children. Go
sliding, make hot chocolate, for in the end it is your presence, not the
presents, that count.

Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters – Pleasantville.

MR. B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise
in this hon. House to honour the Vanier Elementary Garden Club. The garden club
was started in 2016, and despite the poor initial growing season, the garden
club was still able to donate potatoes from their growth season to the Single
Parent Association.

The
garden club boasts about 30 members, who love to eat what they grow. Under the
direction of Mr. Geoff Shinkle, the garden club has recently, with the help of
their families and community, erected hoop houses that have made it possible to
grow more vegetables.

Previously, due to summer vacation, the children were not able to witness the
fruits of their labour, but thanks to the hoop houses, they are able to grow
later than ever before. The radishes that were planted in the first hoop house
survived every frost we have had so far and should be ready to be harvested in
just a few weeks.

The
garden club hopes to have an even more successful 2018 and donate the fruits and
vegetables to the Vanier Breakfast Program or families who could benefit from
fresh produce.

Thank
you to Mr. Shinkle and the Vanier Garden Club for helping grow our community.

Thank
you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for the
District of Fogo Island – Cape Freels.

MR. BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, imagine hearing
the news that you need a heart transplant to live. Now imagine needing three
heart transplants before grade six.

Terry
Gill was born in 1989 with a defective heart and was soon to spend more time in
hospitals than his own bed. Most were spent at the Sick Kids Hospital in
Toronto.

In 1996,
Terry underwent two heart transplants. In 2003, Terry underwent another
transplant. All during this time, Terry's mom and dad made his life as normal as
possible.

In
recent years, Terry became an active member of the New-Wes-Valley Volunteer Fire
Department and currently sits on the town council, while working full time with
Hoyle's Ambulance. But Terry, being one of the most eligible bachelors I know,
got married this past summer. And together with his wife, were delighted to
introduce baby Sebastian into this world.

Terry
Gill stands as the best reason I know to sign your organ-donor card. Without the
consideration of others, Terry's story may have never been written. I chatted
with Terry before writing this and you should have seen his big smile.

Please
join me in celebrating Terry's life and story.

Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for the
District of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise
in this hon. House to congratulate the organizers, volunteers and residents for
the success of the fourth annual Strides kitchen party in support of Daffodil
Place that took place at the St. Jacques-Coomb's Cove community centre in
October, which I was delighted to attend.

Committee members Lorraine Bambury, Jane Williams, Rhonda Bungay and Jean
Sheppard are committed volunteers who give wholeheartedly of themselves to help
others in the community. In partnership with Penny Pardy and the Canadian Cancer
Society, the kitchen party features local entertainment and delicious food,
guest speakers and over 180 donated prizes, raffles and gift baskets. This
lively and inspirational event provides support for people with cancer who must
travel to St. John's for treatments.

The
kitchen party has raised over $50,000 in support of Daffodil Place. As of
September 2017, 1,412 nights for cancer patients from the Coast of Bays region
were provided by Daffodil Place with an approximate cost of over $250,000.

I ask
all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the fundraising
committee and all those who contribute to ensure we help ease the financial and
emotional burden of a cancer diagnosis and continue to make huge strides in the
fight against cancer: steps towards research, education, detection and
awareness, eradication and support.

Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the
District of Placentia West – Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, adversity and challenge presents itself in different forms, often
beyond anyone's control. To some, it is overwhelming. For others, with a
positive attitude, it can be overcome. Such is the case with Ethan Hunt.

This
17-year-old from Marystown has consistently rolled up his sleeves and stared
down adversity head-on, despite a life full of challenges.

Just
this February, Ethan underwent heart surgery. In April, he had reconstructive
knee surgery. None of this has held him back and, Mr. Speaker, it's not about to
start now.

He is an
avid volunteer for Children's Wish. Each year, he organizes the Ethan Hunt
Project in support of the Janeway. In the new year, he will embark upon a new
mission to support the Ronald McDonald House.

He is
active in Special Olympics, a decorated sea cadet in RCSCC 121 Mary Rose and
dutifully serves as an alter server at his church. In fact, just this past
weekend, he was named the newest mascot for the Marystown Mariners. Perhaps, Mr.
Speaker, we may have a future MHA in our very midst.

Mr.
Speaker, Ethan, with his ever-supportive parents, Rick and Lori, has become a
shining example of positivity and giving back, determined to overcome whatever
life throws at him and being all the better for it.

Keep
smiling, Ethan. Thanks for being you.

Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by
Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House today to recognize November 19 to 26 as Restorative Justice Week.
Last week, I was joined by my colleagues from the Department of Education and
Early Childhood Development, Children, Seniors and Social Development and the
Minister Responsible for the Status of Women at an event with our stakeholders
in proclaiming this week and showing our support for this important initiative.
I am also pleased to be a part of a panel discussion this evening that will
explore the use of restorative justice approaches to address challenges in the
province's education and legal systems.

Mr.
Speaker, restorative justice focuses on addressing the harm caused by crime
while holding the offender responsible for his or her actions. It provides an
opportunity for the parties directly affected by crime – victims, offender and
community – to identify and address their needs.

Mr.
Speaker, this government strongly believes in restorative justice and recognizes
we need to find innovative ways to address the numbers of people incarcerated,
to look at why they are incarcerated and to determine how to reduce the risk of
reoffending.

The
Department of Justice and Public Safety has been exploring initiatives such as
the drug treatment court, bail supervision and adult diversion to keep people
out of court, address access to justice matters and improve peoples'
interactions with the justice system.

Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in acknowledging Restorative Justice
Week and all the individuals that are involved in making this happen, and I look
forward to continuing this important work with my colleagues and stakeholders.

Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank
the minister, first of all, for an advance copy of his statement today. We, too,
are pleased to recognize Restorative Justice Week. This week provides an
opportunity not only to acknowledge, but also to encourage a continued
discussion on better ways of assisting victims, offenders and the community at
large so the needs arising from matters of crime can be resolved in the best
interest of all parties involved, currently and for the future. It's important
to raise awareness for a restorative approach to address crime and conflicts in
our society.

I hope
this week will play an opportunity for all to continue that discussion. I thank
all stakeholders, Mr. Speaker, for having the drive and the vision to continue
discussing and keeping a focus on progress and improvement in our justice
system.

Thank
you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I, too, thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I applaud all those who are
doing the important work of restorative justice. Currently, all of our
correctional facilities are bursting at the seams. We are locking up people when
there are proven alternatives.

I
encourage the Minister of Justice to explore every option that offers
alternatives to incarceration when possible and, when not, to ensure every tool
possible to help people with rehabilitation be employed. We cannot afford not to
do this. I am looking forward to seeing restorative justice established in all
our educational and justice systems.

Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by
ministers?

The hon.
the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise
in this hon. House today to congratulate Women in Resource Development
Corporation on the occasion of its 20th anniversary.

For 20
years now, the corporation has been committed to increasing women's
participation in trades and technology. That work is to be commended.

Mr.
Speaker, our government provides operational funding to the Women in Resource
Development Corporation through Advanced Education, Skills and Labour's Labour
Market Development Agreement and Youth Innovation Grants. This has created the
foundation for very strong working relationships between the corporation and
government officials, including those in Natural Resources and the Women's
Policy Office.

In
Newfoundland and Labrador, we continue to strive to become a world leader in
gender equity in the natural resource sector, and the Women in Resource
Development Corporation has played a vital role in our province's success. It
has positioned itself as a key partner for advancing gender diversity in the
workplace and has provided thousands of young girls and women throughout the
province with the knowledge, resources and supports they need to make truly
informed career choices, and successfully train and advance the science,
technology, engineering, mathematics and the skilled trades.

The
Women in Resource Development Corporation has delivered workplace diversity and
inclusion training to hundreds of employers, provided linkages to skilled and
qualified women, and worked directly with the operators, contractors and
sub-contractors of our province's natural resource projects. The organization
has been a key part of creating a local, diverse, skilled workforce, and in
supporting industry in their efforts to create and maintain inclusive
workplaces.

Mr.
Speaker, I'd like to acknowledge my colleague here in the House, the MHA for St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi, who was the first Executive Director of the Women in
Resource Development Corporation, and was dedicated to the development of the
organization.

I thank
all women who have contributed to the corporation's work, past and present, and
wish them many, many more years of great success.

Thank
you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank
the minister for an advance copy of her statement. We, on this side of the
House, join in congratulating the Women in Resource Development Corporation on
the occasion of its 20th anniversary. I would also like to recognize my
colleague, the MHA for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi, on her dedication and
previous work with the organization.

Organizations such as Women in Resource Development Corporation do tremendous
work in furthering gender equity in this province and we commend them for doing
so, but there's still much to do. I ask government to continue to work with
these stakeholders and work with industry to further gender equity in our
province.

Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

I thank
the minister for the advance copy of her statement, and I thank her for her
recognition of my role with WRDC. I'm absolutely delighted and I'm proud to
stand and celebrate the 20th anniversary – who would have believed?

I'm very
much aware of the accomplishments of Women in Resource Development Corporation,
particularly in the oil and gas and mining industries. WRDC first gave
leadership through the environmental assessment process in getting women's
employment plans introduced, first, in the Voisey's Bay mining project and then
the White Rose offshore development, and much has happened since.

Congratulations, Women in Resource Development Corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by
ministers?

Oral
Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.
Speaker, while Bill 25 is being debated in this hon. House, the Canadian Medical
Association has raised serious concerns regarding the government's heavy-handed
approach in its proposed Prescription
Monitoring Act.

As the
former president of the Canadian Medical Association, I ask the minister: What
is your response to those concerns?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE: Mr. Speaker, thank you for
the question.

We have
an opioid issue in this province, as we do in this country. As of data released
very recently, every man, woman and child in this province has on average eight
days of opioids prescribed for them every year.

This
measure is part of a package to deal with the opioid issue. We consulted widely
and have had input from the regulators, particularly the College of Physicians
and Surgeons of Newfoundland and Labrador, who have been fully supportive of
these measures and proposals, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to continuing in
committee in the near future on this bill.

Thank
you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I
suggest to the minister that none of the stakeholders that we've met with or
spoken with were able to see a draft bill or specifics of the bill prior to it
being brought to the House of Assembly.

Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Medical Association has outlined three specific concerns
in their letter of November 22 to the minister and recommends that the minister
engage in a dialogue with stakeholders to discuss the concerns.

I ask
the minister if he'll commit to meeting with stakeholders and having meaningful
dialogue prior to finalizing this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

I would
repeat what I've already said in this House. The consultation process was in
actual fact initiated by the Members opposite in the early part of 2015. We have
consulted with no less than 12 representative groups of prescribers and
dispensers and regulators and we have had no fewer than 24 individual bouts of
consultation face to face.

We have,
in addition, consulted with folk by telephone as recently as 20-or-so hours
prior to the debate starting in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask
the minister: Of all the groups that he consulted with, were any of them
actually provided with the detailed specifics and contents of the bill prior to
the bill coming to the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE: Mr. Speaker, the content of
the bill was derived from extensive consultations. As the Member opposite knows,
until the bill has passed first reading, the contents of it are not available
for public dissemination.

I will
tell you that within the confines of his confidentiality agreements with
government as legislated, the Privacy Commissioner had full of sight of that
prior to and he shared his comments with us right up until the time the debate
started and he entered the public arena with his comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We now
have a minister who is going to publicly criticize an independent Officer of
this House. We heard that this morning as well.

The
Canadian Medical Association recommends that the minister recognize the
authority of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Newfoundland and Labrador
and support their role and capacity in the practice patterns of physicians
including monitoring and subsequent interventions.

I ask
the minister: Why is he unilaterally imposing these rules upon physicians when
he has control?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE: Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate
that the Member opposite seems to attribute comments to me that I have not yet
made and sentiments that I have not expressed.

I have
not, at any stage, taken on anybody. I've simply recognized the Member's
questions and answered them honestly. His interpretation is his affair and not
mine.

As far
as the discussions around heavy-handedness and this kind of thing, those are
comments that the Members opposite have chosen to bring.

This is
the result of an extensive consultative process to deal with a situation that is
killing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The time for analysis is over, Mr.
Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, nobody is
questioning the importance of this bill. We said at the onset, we support the
intention of the bill, the importance of the bill, the need for the bill in the
province. That's not a reason to rush it through without proper debate and
proper consultation and listening to important stakeholders from the community.

The
province's Privacy Commissioner has also raised concerns with the government's
proposed legislation. His concerns centre on privacy issues and the real
potential for problems in the future. It's not about the minister personally,
Mr. Speaker; it's about the potential in the future as well.

Has the
minister met with the Privacy Commissioner since his concerns have been made
public?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE: Mr. Speaker, I think it's
again worth repeating here what I have said in the possibly four hours of debate
that has gone on around this act. That is private health care information in
this province will remain just that.

The
whole of this package around Bill 25 is constructed to acknowledge the
importance of the Personal Health
Information Act. It is built around that. The mechanism and the oversight
and the administration of it are done within that framework, with one exception,
Mr. Speaker, and that is to deal with the issue of non-compliant rogue
individuals who double doctor. I have nothing to apologize for in this
legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official
Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, nobody is asking
the minister to apologize. I just finished saying a moment ago this is not
personal about the minister; this is about getting the best legislation.

The
minister doesn't need to be defensive. We need to have a discussion about how to
get the best legislation. That's what the House of Assembly is about, Mr.
Speaker.

The
Privacy Commissioner is an independent, non-partisan Officer of this House. He
has a role to oversee both the Access to
Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the
Personal Health Information Act. Giving the Privacy Commissioner
just a briefing a couple of months ago I don't believe goes far enough.

Why is
the minister disregarding valuable input from a subject-matter expert, the
Privacy Commissioner? Is the Minister Responsible for Access to Information
comfortable with the Minister of Health's disregard for the Commissioner's
concern?

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Health and
Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE: Once again, Mr. Speaker,
there are some slight factual errors in the preamble to that question, not least
of which is my department staff were talking with the Privacy Commissioner
immediately prior to his press release and subsequent to the publication of the
bill under the authority of the Queen's Printer after it had been read the first
time.

The
Privacy Commissioner indeed is a very valued member of the health care team. We
have conducted recently a review of the
Personal Health Information Act and its working under Dr. Morgan. In actual
fact, if it hasn't already been released, that report will be released in the
near future. We are working to make that act better again, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official
Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS: So, Mr. Speaker, he's not
going to respond to the Canadian Medical Association. He's not going to delay
the passage and progress of the bill and have time to speak to their concerns.

The
Privacy Commissioner spoke publicly and when I asked him, he's not saying he
spoke to him after the Privacy Commissioner became public. So there are many
concerns that are mounting on this bill, Mr. Speaker, but I'm sure all
legislators want to get it right.

I ask
the minister: What review was done to ensure the public, including patient's
constitutional rights, will be protected under this legislation? What review was
done? What consultation was done?

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Health and
Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE: Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.

I am not
a legislator in the sense of a drafter of legislation. We have that expertise
within House. However, it is my understanding that they, in their professional
capacity, would not allow us in any capacity to bring to the House a bill that
was in contravention of the Constitution or in breach of the Charter, Mr.
Speaker. I would offer that as the best answer to that question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister responsible for Environment: Will you be
implementing a carbon tax in our province by next year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank
you for the question. As we said, we're going to have a product that's made here
in Newfoundland for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker.

I always
hear the Member talking about the carbon tax. I just want to remind him: your
party brought us the biggest tax that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are ever
going to see, called Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: So I can assure you, whatever
we do will be done for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We will
come up with a program that is going to benefit the economic development of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.
Speaker, my next question is: When do you intend on telling taxpayers, families,
business and industry how much this carbon tax is going to cost them?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, when we develop
the plan, which we said will be done in 2018, we will make it publicly known. We
said that. I know the former minister said that. I'm saying that, in 2018, we'll
have it done.

Unlike
Muskrat Falls, which we were told that it's going to be a medium or small
increase in rates, now we're going to find out that they're double – double –
going from $6.2 billion up to almost $12 billion.

So
anything that we do, we'll make it publicly known. We'll work with all
stakeholders. We will not exclude anybody, including the PUB, if necessary, to
make sure we get it right for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess
I'll try again on another one now. Yesterday in the House the minister said
they're in constant consultation with the federal government; we're in constant
consultations with all partners of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Minister, who's involved in those consultations; can you be more specific?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE: Well, Mr. Speaker, on the
ministerial level, it's the minister; on the staff level, it's the staff; and in
Newfoundland and Labrador, it's all the businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I mean, we made it quite clear. I've been quite upfront; the former minister has
been quite upfront on the consultations.

The
federal government has come up with legislation; they will make a backstop if we
don't come up with something made in Newfoundland and Labrador. We're working at
making something in Newfoundland and Labrador. I can assure you, though, it will
not put Newfoundlanders and Labradorians behind the eight ball like your
government did with Muskrat Falls.

Mr.
Speaker, to date, we have yet to get an apology from that government for what
they did to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, the taxes that they gave them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN: I guess the minister is going
to have to try to find his briefing binder on carbon taxes, Mr. Speaker. So I'll
try another one.

The
former minister of Environment said your government would be monitoring
emissions from large industry for two years. He said your plan was to have two
years of data so that, by the start of 2019, companies will receive targets and
they will have strategies before them as to how they are going to meet those
targets.

Yesterday you said: We'll have a solution in 2018. Why the change? How can you
impose a solution before you even determine the targets?

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister Responsible for
the Office of Climate Change.

MR. JOYCE: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I
have to put on my glasses for this because I was going to stand up with
questions that were asked by the Leader of the Official Opposition yesterday.
I'll read it because I was going to present this information later when he asked
that there were nine industrial facilities done. The report has been in. We are
finalizing it. Part of the greenhouse gas act, it's all made public. It will be
public in the very near future, Mr. Speaker, and I was going to present that
later as questions that you asked yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN: Can the minister clarify, is
the two years of monitoring completed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, under the act,
it has to be done every year. What we're going to be putting forth here now is
what was done up to this period as we speak, one year. That's what we're going
to make public, then continue on under the act that they all have to report the
greenhouse emissions.

So that
is part of the act and the act was passed in this House of Assembly, Mr.
Speaker. So if you could see the act – and it's going to be made public, the
information that is right now collected will be posted online for the general
public to see, unlike Muskrat Falls where you kicked out the PUB, where you
would not release the full information to everybody in Newfoundland and
Labrador. We will be open and accountable to all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN: I remind the minister, Mr.
Speaker, that act that we passed last year was for two years monitoring. It
clearly states it in the act. It was done June of 2016, it brings us up – so
I'll wait for better clarity than one year; it's supposed to be two years, Mr.
Speaker.

Your
Liberal government, like the Trudeau Liberals, have left the people with more
questions than answers about what the pending carbon tax will mean for families,
employers and our economy. Why is your government hiding your plan for the
carbon tax?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the last thing
that I noticed hid, the great tax for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, is what
you called Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I stood in the
Opposition when the Member who brought in, who was the minister – I think it was
Natural Resources at the time – said phone Nalcor. You can phone in, tell them
what your power rate is and they'll tell you how much it is – this phone a
meter.

Mr.
Speaker, do you know what it was? Go up two cents, when you made that call,
actually.

So
anything that we do will be open. It will be public. The public will know. We're
in consultation with the industry, we're in consultation with all the
stakeholders and we're in consultation with the federal government, Mr. Speaker.
I can assure you we will not kick the PUB or anybody that can help us out with
this carbon tax out of the picture because we want it best for Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

I have
one request for the minister. Would he please go back and review his briefing
binder on the carbon tax?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN: That's all I'm asking.

I'm
going to ask another one now and I'm going to try again. A study by the Angus
Reid Institute this summer showed the majority of Canadians and even a larger
majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, 62 per cent, actually, oppose the
carbon tax.

Why is
your government ignoring public opinion on the carbon tax?

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister Responsible for
the Office of Climate Change.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry to
laugh at the Member because I gave you my briefing note. I gave you the full
briefing book. You can have the briefing binder. I walked over and I gave you
the briefing binder.

Mr.
Speaker, it's not complicated. There's nothing hid here. The federal government
came out with a law. What we're going to do, we're going to produce something
that's going to benefit Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, made in Newfoundland
and Labrador, for Newfoundland and Labrador, to help Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.

If you
want another copy of the briefing book, you can have it. We're not hiding
anything on this side of the House of Assembly, unlike Muskrat Falls, Mr.
Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Unlike Muskrat Falls where
the PUB was kicked out, Mr. Speaker, and we couldn't even get information here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind
the minister he did provide that information to me. But guess what? I read it;
he never.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN: You keep talking about a
made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador carbon tax plan. How can you be so confident
it will be enough to satisfy the prime minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister Responsible for
the Office of Climate Change.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, just on a
personal note, you may have read it. I wrote it, so I do know it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, just on a
personal note there.

The
federal government has a law. The federal government passed a law on greenhouse
gas emissions. They have it and what we do we have to conform within that law.
We, as a province, and all the provinces in Canada have to conform within the
regulations that the federal government put forth.

What we
have done, we said we'll make something for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
because we want to benefit Newfoundland and Labrador. We don't want to put
people out, wondering if they are going to pay their heat bill or pay their
phone bills (inaudible) –

I'll try
one more, Mr. Speaker. Can he tell us what his plan is to safeguard the
competitiveness of our onshore and offshore industries?

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister Responsible for
the Office of Climate Change.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, as I said
earlier, we're in consultation with all the industries and Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. We always consult. This government always consults.

Mr.
Speaker, I don't want to talk about why we don't consult. We want to look at the
previous government. Let's look at Abitibi, took over a mill they didn't want.
Look at the mill they didn't want.

We have
to look at Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry to bring it up, but I can
assure you, that's going to be the biggest burden on Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians that any of us in this House are ever going to see.

They
kicked out the Joint Review Panel, they kicked out the PUB and they're
questioning us on the consultations we're having? It's shameful. You should
practice what you preach, Mr. Speaker, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
wouldn't be in the bind that they're going to be facing in the next three or
four years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon.
Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

After
almost two years of waiting, the Fisheries Advisory Council was finally created.
Can the minister provide an update as to what the council has done so far?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. parliamentary
secretary for Fisheries and Land Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, I'm so delighted
to stand in this House today and take his very first question. I studied the
news so hard the last two days wondering what it was going to be and really
hoped it was going to be about the big cat on the West Coast.

The
Fisheries Advisory Council – we're meeting with the stakeholders, we're meeting
with industry. As time permits, more information will become available. I'm sure
the minister, when he's here, will update everyone on every step of the way.

Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for the
District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we're all aware,
and I'm sure the hon. Member is aware, of the dramatic decline in both the
shrimp and the snow crab stocks and the quotas. Harvesters and plant workers are
very concerned.

How much
longer will we have to wait for the strategic action plan on cod revitalization
that your government promised to deliver?

MR. SPEAKER: The parliamentary secretary
for the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BRAGG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess
there's nothing like starting off with a bang, because I do represent an area
which is rich in shrimp, the groundfish and the shellfish industry. I can
guarantee you, this affects everyone.

We're
working with industry stakeholders on this. Everyone is involved in the
conversation. I can guarantee you we're going to do the right thing that needs
to be done to get this industry on the right foot.

Thank
you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Natural Resources about power generation
ability throughout the upcoming winter months.

Minister, based on your understanding, if we continue to have reservoir water
shortage, will there be enough water in the reserve to provide sufficient
generation to all of the province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this very important question.

As I
said yesterday in this House, reservoir levels are at 87 per cent, which is
slightly lower than what we would like in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has assured me that they have adequate thermal
generation and there should be no difficulty in supply this winter.

Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
minister said she had concerns. I understand there are 1,000 gigawatt hours less
than there were this time last year.

Recently, the manager for Exploits Generation with Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro has said: Due to low water levels on the Exploits River, some of the
lowest in 50 years, power generation will be drastically decreased.

I ask
the minister: What is the replacement plan for this energy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again,
these are very important issues for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to
ensure that we have adequate supply of electricity. This is very important to
us.

Yes, Mr.
Speaker, it has been a dry summer and a dry fall and, as I said, reservoir
levels are lower than we would like to see them in the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador.

Mr.
Speaker, over the last number of years, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has done
a tremendous amount of work on maintenance and upgrading of its thermal
generation systems. I can assure the Member opposite that even this past summer
there was work being done on them, maintenance of these generators.

Mr.
Speaker, I've been assured by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro on behalf of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we will have adequate generation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, my colleague spoke of the Holyrood Generating Station and the
particular generator out there and the increase in fuel costs out there over the
summer.

I just
wonder from the minister, could you indicate: Is there greater capacity at
Holyrood, through that generator that could be used if there's a shortfall in
energy in the coming winter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over
this summer there was a tremendous amount of maintenance done, as the Member can
remember back in 2015 when there wasn't enough generation. Since that time,
there has been a requirement to have on standby the combustion turbine which was
operational during the summer; its backup power was required for Holyrood.

I can
assure the Member opposite, maintenance has been done. There has been a review
of the combustion turbine – sorry, the thermal generation opportunities in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I've been reassured by Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro, Mr. Speaker, that we are in good shape for this winter despite
the lower water levels. I again remind the people of the province, it is at 87
per cent.

Thank
you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Ferryland for a very quick question.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder
if the minister could tell us: Based on the suspected low level of waters, what
is the expected generation decrease we could see this winter, and basically
where is that replacement energy coming from?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources for a quick response.

MS. COADY: Mr. Speaker, I think I've
answered his question.

We have
thermal generation, all systems are go, Mr. Speaker, on that thermal generation.
There was maintenance done at Holyrood this past summer to ensure that it was in
proper working order, Mr. Speaker. We have thermal generation as a backup to our
hydro generation, and I've been reassured by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro
we're in good shape for the winter.

Thank
you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

In the
last three years we have heard loud and clear from parents about unsafe
conditions for the children walking to school. They are calling for a change in
the school busing policy so children and youth are not walking on busy roads
with no sidewalks or on roads because existing sidewalks are full of snow. We
need action now before another child or young person is injured or killed
walking to or from school.

I ask
the minister: Will he create a flexible busing policy that allows for situations
where the absence of functioning sidewalks puts young students at serious risk?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, as far as I know, are not responsible for sidewalks
in municipalities. Municipalities are responsible for sidewalks in their
communities. If there are dangerous conditions on roads, municipalities should
apply to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of
Transportation and Works, whichever department, to try to get funding in order
to fix those sorts of conditions.

We
already have a flexible busing policy. It's called courtesy seating, and most of
those problems with school busing are resolved within the first three to four
weeks of school, as has been the case this fall. We have a total of one
outstanding case at the moment.

Thank
you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third
Party.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

I'm
asking the minister: Is he saying that he has no concerns of the unsafe
conditions that exist at this moment? Forget the future – right now at this
moment, he has no concerns for the safety of our children?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, I'm a father of
a primary school student. I am concerned about the situation in schools in this
province, of course I am. I didn't say that I was – I don't appreciate the
Leader of the Third Party putting words into my mouth.

I said
if municipal roads are unsafe they should – municipalities – apply to government
in order to get cost-sharing funding, like other communities across this
province have done. If there's a particular circumstance that the Member is
aware of, she should bring it to the attention of a Member of Cabinet or the
minister responsible. That way, those issues can be resolved rather than
throwing those sorts of allegations across the floor of the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, first, the
Medical Association, then the Privacy Commissioner came out with serious
concerns about the proposed Prescription
Monitoring Act. Dr. Bruce Hollett, the province's key opioid addiction
specialist, said he was never consulted and has some pretty serious concerns, as
does SWAP and now the Canadian Medical Association.

Mr.
Speaker, I understand the minister's sense of urgency to get this legislation in
place, but I ask: Will he put this bill on temporary hold until he sorts out
these crucial issues with these experts and then bring amendments to the House
to address these outstanding issues?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

I think
the Member opposite should realize that, as I've said in debate, this bill is a
balance. We have an equal constituency of people who think this bill is not
strong enough. We have concerns from the Medical Association, which we've heard,
and we have struck a balance to deal with what is a pressing issue, which
resulted in the death of 16 people in the last year and, as I say, puts us as
leaders in the number of opioid prescriptions per capita in this country which,
in turn, is a world leader in that unfortunate trend.

I would
suggest to the Member opposite we have struck a fair and appropriate balance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, a potential
consequence of this bill is some doctors may stop prescribing opioids.

I ask
the minister: What is his plan to deal with this, and also the impact on folks
who have an addiction and are going to go to the street to get drugs that are
way more dangerous and may cause more deaths? What is his plan for this?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE: Mr. Speaker, the emphasis
currently is on this bill, and that's entirely appropriate because we are
legislators. Outside this bill there is panoply, a jigsaw puzzle of pieces that
fit round in terms of harm reduction, in terms of education, in terms of
treatment.

The
Member opposite for two years sat on the All-Party Committee on Mental Health
and Addictions – and addictions I emphasize. This was part and parcel of what
that Member opposite signed off to with a 54-point recommendation plan. She
knows where we're going and you can't say all that in 45 seconds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre for a very quick question, please.

MS. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Premier: When is he going to use legislative committees like he promised? This
is exactly what happens when we don't use them to review and analyze bills
before they come to the House. They are not ready.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House
Leader for a quick response.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm
certainly happy to answer this question. Legislative committees are something
that we're striving for. We haven't seen them in this House in decades.

I'd like
to think that with the co-operation of all Members, we've made a number of
changes in this House in the last couple of years and there are more to come.

Thank
you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions
has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling
of Documents.

Tabling of
Documents

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'd like
to read into the record a statement I made earlier. For the record, in Question
Period yesterday, there was an exchange regarding the tabling of the Marble
Mountain Development Corporation, the 2016-2017 annual report.

I have
looked into this matter and can confirm that the report was tabled by the
responsible minister on October 31, 2017. Physical copies were distributed to
each caucus; however, in error, it was not posted to the House of Assembly
website. I can also confirm that the Clerk has made all parties aware of this
error and the report is now available on the House of Assembly website.

Thank
you.

Notices
of Motion.

Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to
Questions for which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I just respond
to the question that the House Leader of the Opposition asked yesterday about
the reporting on the greenhouse emissions. There were nine industrial sites
under the Management of Greenhouse Gas Act.
Once those reports are in, they'll be finalized and they will be made public.

The ones
that will be made public in the very near future are for 2016 and 2017, one
year. They have to report annually on the greenhouse emissions. For the first
year, it will be done very soon and put online.

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions for which
notice has been given?

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS
government has removed the provincial point-of-sale tax rebate on books which
will raise the tax on books from 5 per cent to 15 per cent; and

WHEREAS
an increase in the tax on books will reduce book sales to the detriment of local
book stores, publishers and authors, and the amount collected by government must
be weighed against the loss in economic activity caused by higher book prices;
and

WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest literacy rates in Canada and the
other provinces do not tax books because they recognize the need to encourage
reading and literacy; and

WHEREAS
this province has many nationally and internationally known storytellers but we
will be the only people in Canada who will have to pay our provincial government
a tax to read the books of our own writers;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government not to impose a provincial sales tax on books.

And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.
Speaker, again, I stand and raise issues that were subsequent effects of the
imposed tax on books, the provincial tax. I've spoken to a few booksellers who
have talked about the impact on their business of this tax. I know the tax is
going to be removed, that the rebate will be in effect again as of January 1.
But I think it's really important to look at what happens when government may
impose taxes, what happens when government may impose legislation where they
haven't fully consulted with people who would be affected, whether it's in
business, whether it's in those who provide services to the province, to the
people of the province.

Again,
we look at how important it is to thoroughly investigate any decisions that are
made in this House. Not to unduly delay them, but to make sure they are the best
possible decisions on behalf of the people of the province and the future of the
province.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, this wasn't a good measure. I've also spoken to someone
who part of their business involves selling books and they've decided not to
sell the books anymore. It's unfortunate. Perhaps they may change that decision
now that the rebate will be reversed in January, but it's hard to tell. This had
major, major, major effects on the people who write books and publish books here
in this province.

Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the
House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament
assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS
expanding the farming, forestry and agrifoods sectors of the province would
promote economic diversification; and

WHEREAS
local agriculture products can be seen as healthy and fresh alternatives; and

WHEREAS
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the potential to be a leader in
agriculture development;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to encourage and support new entrants into
farming and agricultural industries.

And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.
Speaker, I had the opportunity this past weekend to be in my district, and
particularly Bell Island, who – people may not know – was a full-fledged
agricultural contributor to all of the Avalon Peninsula for decades and decades,
before the mining industry and even during the mining industry.

For a
period of time when I worked as the Economic Development officer over there in
the early '80s, I did get to manage a 60-acre farm. Now, unfortunately, my skill
set in farming is very limited to knowing that putting the right people who know
farming is very important and the benefits from that.

I do
have the opportunity here, after talking to some people who are starting to move
agriculture forward again on Bell Island, about how we had to get to that level,
where we are now about food security, where we are about food sustainability
here and where we are about food safety. So all these things are pertinent to
being able to move that industry again and get younger people back into it. To
do that, we've got to have incentives, we've got to have an education process,
we've got to have a mentoring program here.

I get a
chance to speak to this because I suspect any knowledge I have of the farming
industry will be overshadowed when my colleague expert in the farming industry
joins us here in the House of Assembly. I want to pick his brain to say not only
in my district but in the whole of this great province of ours, how we can
promote agriculture, how we can get new entrants in, how we can get
diversification when it comes to the farming industry to ensure food safety,
food security, food reliability. Also, particularly, around enhancing the
economics here and creating jobs, and creating sustainable employment.

So this
is an opportunity here. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and
particularly those in my district, have talked about wanting supports and
encouragement from government and developing partnerships with agencies that are
out there who have an expertise to be able to support moving things forward and
educate.

I have
an opportunity to speak to this, and I can't wait for my colleague to join me
here so I can pick his brain also about how we can move this forward.

Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm
certainly pleased today to rise on a point of interest for residents of my
district.

To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS
the Witless Bay Line is a significant piece of transportation infrastructure;
and

WHEREAS
it's a main highway and it plays a major role in the commercial and residential
growth of our region;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to upgrade and perform regular maintenance to
this significant piece of infrastructure to enhance and improve the flow of
traffic to and from the Trans-Canada Highway.

Mr.
Speaker, I've spoken to this before here in the Legislature in regard to this
piece of infrastructure that connects the Trans-Canada Highway to Route 10, and
the need to have those upgrades, continue to have it upgraded and do an
investment that we've built on over the past number of years, but a continued
investment of certain requirements. I call on government to deal with this in
next year's 2018 road infrastructure plan.

Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

Private Members'
Day

MR. SPEAKER: This being Wednesday, I now
call on the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island to introduce the
resolution standing in his name, Motion 5.

MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I
apologize, as I was engulfed in talking about aquaculture –

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's an
honour to stand and present the private Member's resolution on school busing.
I'll just read the resolution that we're putting forward.

BE IT
RESOLVED that this hon. House urges the government to amend the School Bus
Transportation Policies to cover the transportation to and from school of pupils
who reside within 1.6 kilometres of that school where those pupils are primary
or elementary students and where those pupils are secondary students whose
safety may be jeopardized by the failure to provide them with school busing.

It's
seconded by my colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis.

Mr.
Speaker, we wanted to bring this forward for a number of reasons. As you may
have noticed, over the last number of months this has become a very hot issue
for people. It's always been there and there have always been ways of looking at
solutions.

The
Minister of Education talked about courtesy busing, which was something the
former administration had worked with the school districts to try to provide. As
we have an explosion in certain areas of the population and we have a major
increase in traffic flows, and, unfortunately, the road networks in some of
these areas that were considered rural, in some cases remote, are limited on how
you can provide safety on our road network when you have students, and
particularly multiples of students that have quadrupled in the populous over the
last decade or so.

We've
been building new schools because the necessity was there. The growth had
dictated it was there. So it was very important that we look at a safety margin
here that would be conducive to including and ensuring that children, students,
particularly younger ones who may be distracted and not notice as much on the
road and because of the nature of the weather we have here, it would be very
important.

It falls
in line with the private Member's resolution that the Member for Baie Verte –
Green Bay presented last week about speeds in school zones. So, obviously,
there's an understanding and an agreement because that was unanimously passed
last week.

We all
support safety for our children and we all support ensuring that in school zones
kids can walk in a safe manner with as much due diligence as possible, but
understanding they're young people who may be distracted, can still walk around
and get to school in a safe manner. Also, that those drivers would not feel
apprehensive about being in a school zone, particularly if they're following the
speed limit and knowing the kids in that area are aware that they're going to be
in that immediate area.

This has
been a hot issue for a number of school councils, a number of parent
organizations, a number of interested associations around ensuring safety in our
areas. Again, it's nothing new. It's been a discussion that's gone on back six,
seven years ago.

I give
credit; it was actually in the Red Book for the Liberal administration, the
present government back in the 2015 election. To me it was well thought out. It
was fluent and it was extremely poignant and to an extreme benefit. We are going
to review the 1.6 kilometre busing policy within government with the intent of
rectifying, ensuring safety is addressed, and what are the mitigating factors or
processes we could use to ensure that policy is either changed or it's modified
in such a way that the first main objective would be safety.

We know
it goes back four decades. It was said on a principle at the time when we had
limited schools in certain areas, they were spread out, the population was
spread out over periods of time. There was less transportation or cars on the
roads. There was less encompassing – kids weren't distracted. The average driver
wasn't distracted with cellphones and all the other services and amenities that
we now have.

As a
result, as society's changed, we've become more aware about safety. Our umbrella
is more around how we mitigate something happening. Let's be proactive versus
reactive. That's where we are now.

We have
an opportunity to be proactive so we ensure safety for those travelling on the
road, but particularly students going to school every morning. As we all know,
the adversity of our weather conditions here dictate heavy snowstorms that
sidewalks don't exist in 95 per cent of our communities in Newfoundland and
Labrador. So the ability for them to be able to walk safely and not be in a
traffic line is minimal when you get from mid-December until sometimes early
May.

We have
to mitigate that by coming up with a strategy and a process. The safest way to
do that, for that period of time, in the morning when there are heavy traffic
times, when kids are distracted because they just woke up, they are only getting
straightened away, they are rushing and all that, it is not to have them on the
roads walking. They're going to school. So how do we do that? How do we do that?

We use
the existing system we have now. It's called a busing system. It's worked. Very
seldom is there an issue from a safety point of view from a kid on a bus, from a
student, because it's one of the safest modes we have of transportation anywhere
in the world, but particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The way
that we can mitigate any other student having any issue around safety or
apprehension by their family or their caregivers or the administration worrying
about children getting to school or children get dismissed because of storms, or
issues around school heating and that, whatever it may be, that they are not now
having to go home, that 1.6 – maybe everybody will tell stories about when we
were younger we walked five miles and 10 kilometres and all these types of
things. That's fine. That was reality. Some of it is embellished, but that was
the reality. It was a different time.

Road
networks, people's awareness of everything else – as kids, our awareness of
stuff at the time was totally different. The number of cars on the road, the
speeds were totally different, a multitude of factors have changed. Because we
always did something one way doesn't necessarily mean it was always the right
way. We may have been lucky in society.

Let's
not base ourselves on how we take care of our children by luck; let's base it on
having a proactive approach here and having policies, programs and services in
play that ensure a safe ability for a student to get to school, for them to get
home, for their parents not to be stressed about situations if there's a
snowstorm, if there's heavy traffic. If, for some reason, there's a driver who's
not following the rules of the law, if there happens to be somebody who's
breaking one of the rules with speed or if it's drinking while under the
influence, at least the safest place that kid could be is on that bus. We need
to go back and look at it.

We do
realize there may be a financial attachment to this and there may be other
solutions of doing it. We've talked about the courtesy busing. That was a number
of years ago when that was brought in to say we've got buses passing kids along
the road, 70-seat buses with 35 kids on it. What's stopping us from stopping
three times along that route to pick up six kids here and eight kids here and
nine kids there to ensure they're safe?

Things
have changed in our society now where a number of kids may come from one part of
a community to school, but their after-school programs or their daycare supports
or the people who are taking care of them after school until their parents get
home from work is in another part of the community. So we managed to sort of
manoeuver working with the school districts, working with the providers of the
transportation, the bus owners and that, that we would look at alternate routes.

In some
cases, as growing communities you had coloured buses that went one route one
way, came back a different way and kids could transfer for them. All these
things seemed to improve the ability to minimize how many young people, how many
of our students would be in harm's way by having to travel on roads that are not
conducive.

The
minister, in a question asked earlier, talked about maybe municipalities should
be going to the Minister of Municipal Affairs or Transportation and Works and
looking for other services or other investments. That's fine in a utopia, in a
perfect world. But in a lot of the communities that are now growing or have
demands on their school system – or schools have changed, they're now built in
one area that encompasses what would have in the past been four schools. There
are more kids from that 1.6 variance that have to walk from one end to the
other. There are issues around that. It's not as simple as saying that.

There is
a simple solution here: Review the 1.6 busing policy and have a look at how we
offer programs. It could be a different way of manoeuvring routes. It could be
the size of buses. It could be the frequency of buses. It could be the times
each school opens to ensure that the buses can continuously pick up and drop
off.

There
are a multitude of approaches there that can be looked at, but as long as the
policy exists, there's nobody taking that initiative because everybody else is
caught up in their own world. The school district has to follow the 1.6; their
budgets are only in line with what the department gives them for offering that
program. The bus providers themselves, they follow the arrangement they're
given, the routes they're given, the number of stops that they'll make, the
number of kids that they are to have on their bus.

So all
of these are factors that need to be looked at and the best way to do that – and
we're not asking the government to announce a massive influx of extra cash to
the school district to bring another 50 or 60 buses on. What we're saying is
review the policy and see where we've gone in the last four decades and the
intent of what would be in the best interest of not only of keeping kids safe,
but also ensuring that they get quality education.

Because
if you're at 1.6 or if you're at the one point and there are six kilometres one
way or a kilometre to school and it's freezing rain or it's a heavy snow storm
and by the time you get to school, now you're 20 minutes trying to dry off. If
anybody knows what that's like, being wet and trying to dry off in school
system, you're not into it for the first half hour or hour. Then all of a
sudden, you've been carrying your books or you've been carrying your lunch and
all that, now that's wet.

So all
of a sudden you're starting off in a negative environment when you're going into
a school system there. When it should be a positive you're trying to go in. And
it's very simple, particularly when you sit and you see your friend next to you,
who just got off a bus because they live an extra three-quarters of a kilometre
further away from the school. But they're in, they're warm, they got everything
in line with them and they're not having to worry about taking off their coat
and where do I put it, on a radiator; do I put it by a heater to try to dry it
off; do they take off their boots because their feet are wet from puddles of
water; are they late because all of a sudden there's a snow storm and they're
having to take a different trek around different areas to get to school?

There
are a number of factors here that can and should be addressed by just simply
going back to look at that policy. But one is just to look at it; the other is
you've got to engage the right people. There are a number of people out there –
you got your stakeholders in the school system, you got your school councils,
you got your parent organizations, you got your department officials, you got
the school district, you got the providers and you got your municipalities.
There are a multitude of factors there that would mitigate the impact. There are
a number of stakeholders who have great input, great resources, could help
develop partnerships. You got your police forces who could tell you about
traffic flows, could tell you about some dangerous intersections and what impact
that would have on students. And that may have an impact on changing your
routing to ensure that more students can get on.

There
are experts out there who do this for a living, and there are programs and
services. IT people who could tell you we could do a computerized routing
process that could take 10 buses and get the same use as you would in areas
where we're using 15, by changing the routes, changing times five minutes here
and there. In some cases, it could be routing around heavy traffic flows on
particular streets. So there is an opportunity to do that.

That
best way to do that is review the policy. That's why we're proposing here – and
we've heard a lot of support from both sides about safety, our children, the
school system, what's needed. We know it's on record that the Liberal
administration had it as part of their red book, which was admirable. It was
something that they wanted to move forward. We support that. We want to take it
to the next level. We're saying it's two years later; it's time to move on. It's
time to start moving this forward. We should put this in play so we're ready for
next year's school season, so that people are ready.

The
students and teachers would know in advance. Those who provide after-school
programs would be aware of how this would work. The municipalities would be
aware. The police forces would be aware to know that the risk of safety to our
students is minimal now in comparison. The bus providers would know what assets,
what resources, what type of resources, is there additional training for the
drivers that's necessary because each bus now may be at a higher capacity than
normal. There are ways of looking at it.

In some
cases, in rural Newfoundland because, unfortunately, the population is going
down when it comes to school-aged children, so every year we're saving on bus
routes there and monies and contracts. Well, maybe we'll move that around to
some of the more suburban areas, the growth areas, where there are safety
factors.

We all
know just in the Northeast Avalon where they will be. There are places in CBS
and Paradise. There are places in Torbay and Flatrock. There are places in
Portugal Cove-St. Philip's. There are places in Mount Pearl. There are places
all around the Northeast Avalon, even up the Southern Shore area when you have
schools spread out, there's some condensing there. Parts of St. John's also have
it. Some neighbourhoods are pretty good. There are some other areas there,
depending with school closing and now the walking distance a little bit further,
that has an impact.

Sidewalks are not the only answer either. There are also other mitigated impacts
that it would have on students, ensuring that when they get to school they're
safe, but they're also comfortable. If you walk 1.6 kilometres on the sidewalk
and it's spilling rain and the wind blowing at you, you're not going to feel the
same as your buddy who just dropped by the door and walked in that school and
has to start class in two minutes.

There
are ways that this can be addressed. The best way is let's have dialogue. Let's
bring the stakeholders together. Let's talk about how we address this. Let's
talk about if there's a cost associated with it, where that comes from. Is it
that we're saving in rural Newfoundland and Labrador now because, as I mentioned
earlier, the unfortunate decline in school-age children? So can we still keep
that amount of money allocated, but now move to other areas so we can improve
safety in particular areas? There's no reason that we can't have that dialogue
and move this forward.

Mr.
Speaker, I'll have an opportunity to speak to this again. I look forward to
dialogue from both sides of this House.

Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid): The hon. Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY: Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

It's
good to have an opportunity on this because there's been a bit of discussion
about this issue again this fall and I'm happy to go through this.

Now that
they're in Opposition, the PC Party seems often confused about what the
government's role is versus what the district's role is in school busing. They
like to, I guess, take people's words and twist them to their own advantage.

You
don't have to twist any of the Education critic's – the Member who just spoke
there, the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island. You don't have to twist
any words he said when he was in government on school busing because,
miraculously, in the five years that he served on the government side of the
House, if you search Hansard you'll
find that not one occasion was he ever as concerned about school busing as he
purports to be here on the floor of the House of Assembly today.

Just in
case he's unclear on what the roles and responsibilities are of the various
levels of government, the provincial government basically does two things: the
provincial government sets out a broad policy direction for school busing which
includes the 1.6-kilometre rule; the provincial government also – the Department
of Education – goes to Cabinet, Treasury Board, the House of Assembly to get
funds every year for school busing. Those are the basic two functions of
government.

The
school district sets the routes for busing. You'll probably recall last year,
earlier this year, the same Member wanted me to start designing bus routes for
CBS, Torbay and so on. I said I'm not going to tell the school district how to
design their routes. That's their responsibility. That was their responsibility
when the Member was muted on the issue of school busing when he served in
government and that continues to be government's responsibility today.

I just
wanted to also take us a little bit further down memory lane, if you will. In
addition to never saying anything about school busing when he was a Cabinet
minister, the former minister might remember that in 2013, when the government
was then spending $47 million a year on busing, since then we have invested an
additional $11 million a year in the busing. Now we're investing $58 million a
year.

In 2013,
their government, at my urging in fact when I sat in Opposition, did a review of
school busing. They paid $75,000 to the consultant Deloitte who produced a
report of no less than 300 pages.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. KIRBY: A 300-page report at the tune
of $75,000. The Education minister of the day – who the Member who just spoke
sat in the Cabinet with – said, basically, the big take-away for that 300-page
report is that no changes are needed right away. That was the position of the
government in 2013 – no changes needed.

The
issue of school busing came up here again in the House of Assembly a year later
because it was learned that Cabinet ministers, including the minister of
Education and the former Member for Carbonear – Harbour Grace, had suggested
that the school busing industry hire a past president of the PC Party of
Newfoundland and Labrador at a cost of $35,000 to lobby the government. So the
government suggested to the school bus lobby that they spend $35,000 lobbying
the government on school busing policy.

With
that, the government decided to also give $10,000 to the school bus lobby to do
the lobbying that they were suggesting they do with the former Progressive
Conservative Party president as the consultant. That came up on the floor here
in the House of Assembly.

I'm sure
the Member forgets all of that as he seems to have forgotten everything else
that has gone on. In addition to that, the school bus lobby also said that at
the urging of those same two Cabinet ministers, if they wanted to get
five-minute meetings with the minister of Education and the minister of Service
NL – who happens to now sit there as the Leader of the Official Opposition, the
Member for Topsail – Paradise was the minister of Service NL – they were told
they had to spend $100 for tickets to a PC Party fundraiser. That was a sort of
cash-for-access business that was going on under their government. That will
tell you where their headspace was when it comes to school busing.

One of
the other things I thought was quite curious about this motion as presented by
the Member; he mentioned students with disabilities nowhere in this. He wants to
prioritize this for these students and those students, but nowhere does he
mention students with disabilities. I'm not surprised that the Member did forget
that because their government forgot students with disabilities time and time
again, in particular, with their inclusive education policy, which we saw as a
complete failure and today we are spending time trying to fix.

The
Member came in here today and basically dropped the motion on the floor of the
House of Assembly where he wants to spend upwards of $15 million now on this,
without considering anything to do with students with disabilities and without
any consideration to all the problems in education that they have created
otherwise.

Again,
I'm not surprised because this was the Member who stood up here in Question
Period one day and talked about students with – leftover students and students
with disabilities were the words he used. To this day, I just can't imagine how
that squares with anybody who's actually concerned about education in this
province.

In
Question Period – I'll just correct what the Member said – I didn't say
sidewalks; it was the Interim Leader of the Third Party that said sidewalks. I
pointed out that I have been at events around metro and observed events taking
place across the province where there was provincial, municipal and federal
money going in to roads work that has to do with providing sidewalks to
municipalities in joint projects on infrastructure.

If there
are sidewalk issues in municipalities, that's one way that Members can do that.
I'm not aware that the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island has met with
either of the ministers responsible for that to do that. He's not indicated one
way or the other, but that is one way that can be resolved.

As I
suggested earlier – and I believe a week ago or when we sat in October as well –
we have had great success with dealing with the courtesy seating policy of the
school district. There was only one outstanding courtesy seating issue that
remains. What happened there in a very highly publicized case is that the
parents did not agree to the courtesy seat that was offered to them by the
school. Which was a surprise to me because when I spoke to the principal of the
school, they indicated that student had been offered a courtesy seat on the bus.

The bus
stop was 550 metres away from that child's house – 550 metres, not 1.6
kilometres – and that was still not sufficient. If the parent would prefer to
drive their student, rather than have their child walk 550 metres from their
house, that's their decision. But in an era where we're talking – I read an
article today about children's use of tablets and so on and so forth, the lack
of physical activity that children get. Walking 550 metres from their house is
something I would expect that a teenager would be able to do.

I could
go on about that and I will speak more about the courtesy seating policy. At
this point, Mr. Speaker, I'll enter an amendment.

The
amendment is as follows: I move, seconded by the Member for Stephenville – Port
au Port, that the word “cover” be replaced with the words “ensure that school
district courtesy seating policies prioritize” and that the words “and where
those pupils are Secondary students whose safety may be jeopardized …”

I say to
the Member for Cape St. Francis, Mr. Speaker, if he doesn't want to listen to
what I have to say, maybe he can find another place to be.

MR. K. PARSONS: (Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY:
Can I give the amendment or not?

MR. K. PARSONS:
Go ahead.

MR. KIRBY: I don't know why the
Member for Cape St. Francis needs to disrupt the proceedings of the House. I'm
just trying to make the amendment. That's my right here.

I'll
continue, Mr. Speaker: “… by the failure to provide them with school busing” be
replaced with “students with disabilities, and students who would otherwise not
have a safe walking route to school.”

Therefore, the amended motion would read as follows:

BE IT
RESOLVED that this hon. House urges the government to amend the School Bus
Transportation Policies to ensure that school district courtesy seating policies
prioritize the transportation to and from school of pupils who reside within 1.6
kilometres of that school where those pupils are primary and elementary
students, students with disabilities, and students who would otherwise not have
a safe walking route to school.

MR. SPEAKER: We'll take a short recess to
examine the amendment for admissibility.

Thank
you.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just
wanted to mention one thing that I had forgotten to mention, which was
problematic with the previous motion as previously presented.

One of
the things about this is that the policy, as it stands, does not allow for
school bus stops 0.4 kilometres from school. There are obvious reasons for that.
In my District of Mount Scio, if you think about areas around, say, Elizabeth
Park Elementary, or Prince of Wales Collegiate, or St. Andrew's Elementary or
Larkhall Academy, if we were to do what that motion suggested, I guess in
layman's terms we would have a snarl of traffic around school zones in urban
areas.

While
the Member may be well intentioned in his presentation of this, I'm not sure
that's going to reduce the number of people that are currently unhappy with the
school bus transportation policy is as it stands. You will have a lot of
motorists, whether that's in Paradise, and speaking of my own district, or
around Kenmount Road, around Prince Philip Drive – I just can't imagine
Elizabeth Avenue increasing the frequency of bus stops within that area.

While it
may be well intentioned, it's certainly not very well reasoned. I think one of
the responsibilities – and it's a weighty responsibility – of Members of this
House of Assembly is to make reasoned arguments and try to find reasoned
solutions. There's absolutely no question that we cannot put a price upon
safety. If I thought that this solution we're proposing was not going to strike
the right balance and ensure children's safety, then I wouldn't suggest it be
crafted in this way.

One of
the things that, I think, if you go back and look at the amount of information
that we have already on the courtesy seating policy, it says that by and large a
lot of the school stakeholders, parents, teachers, children themselves don't
have significant issues when it comes to school bus eligibility – the vast
majority of people. Because the existing courtesy seating policy is fairly
liberal – and I say that in the small-L sense – a liberal policy in that there's
a lot of opportunity for courtesy seating on buses.

What
this does then is it actually, I would say, further liberalizes it in the sense
that should the Members of the House of Assembly choose to pass this amended
motion, then it will be my responsibility, I would say, to ensure that I bring
this to the attention of both of the chairs of the English and French school
boards and to the attention of the CEOs of the respective boards to make sure
they're aware of the policy direction that we want to go in. That is that
courtesy seating would then prioritize the courtesy seating for the youngest
students at school and for students who have disabilities who currently do not
have a special allowance for transportation. And there are instances of that.

I know
my colleague, the Minister of Service NL, could lecture us all in instances
where there are children with disabilities that could avail or often avail of
courtesy seating policies. We can ensure now that would be prioritized. The
amended wording indicates this also would include all students who would
otherwise not have a safe walking route to school.

I think
it's a better use of the existing busing resources that we have. It's a better
prioritization of the courtesy seating policy. Rather than casting the widest
net possible, it really focuses in on what I understand are some of the concerns
as it relates to the courtesy seating policy that we have today.

I
encourage all Members of the House to support the amended motion. As I said,
I'll take responsibility then for informing the school districts of our
decision.

Thank
you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Cape St.
Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

It's
indeed a pleasure to get up today to talk about this issue, the 1.6-kilometre
busing issue. Since I've been over here in Opposition, it's given me the
opportunity every day to get up and present petitions to the House of Assembly.
I've presented many; I think it's about 10 so far now since we've been in
Opposition on this particular issue. I'm not the only one that is after
presenting this petition. The hon. Member for CBS, the hon. Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island have also. I think our leader, the Opposition
Leader, has also presented it.

Mr.
Speaker, when I was on the other side of the House for a good few years, and the
now-Education Minister, when he was on this side of the House, both as a Liberal
and an NDP – because he was on both; he was in both parties. I heard him speak
both as an NDP and as a Liberal to present a petition. One petition that he
presented, he was speaking so long about it that he named off all the
communities.

By the
time he finished his naming of the communities that this serious issue was a
problem with, the Speaker had to remind him that his time was over. There are so
many areas in this province from Lumsden to Greenspond, to Carbonear, to
Flower's Cove, to Cormack, Marystown, Smallwood Drive in Mount Pearl, Norris
Arm, Rocky Harbour, Glenwood, Appleton, Gander, Clarenville, Carmanville,
Victoria Cove, George's Point and Gander Bay. He named off every community until
the Speaker had to say, okay, that's enough. He said he had 700 signatures from
all of these communities. His whole address was about 1.6 and safety.

Mr.
Speaker, it blows me away when I look at it because I presented 10. I don't know
how many the minister presented, an awful lot more than 10, on this particular
issue. He's obviously had a change of heart since he became Minister of
Education.

Mr.
Speaker, the Member for Baie Verte – Green Bay last week – and I had the
absolute pleasure to get up and speak on his motion. His motion, to me, was a
serious motion because it addressed safety in school zones.

Mr.
Speaker, we're here as legislators to make sure we pass laws that make sure that
people are safe. In particular – I won't say in particular, we're here to make
sure everybody is safe. When it comes to children, we should be doing the
utmost. I know government says: Oh, the cost. It will be a large cost; it will
be a huge cost on this. But, to me, there's no cost that you can put on this
when it comes to the safety of our children.

Just
recently, this year alone, one young gentleman, a 17-year-old actually, got
killed walking back and forth to school – 17 years old.

The
first day of school this year the RNC, in school zones, put out 170 fines. There
were 170 people that did something in a school zone, whether it was speeding,
passing school buses, or weren't abiding by proper parking, but it was safety
issues. There were 170 on the first day of school. Mr. Speaker, we're not asking
for anything that shouldn't be done.

I'm
going to talk a little bit about my own district. The minister brought up today
and talked about sidewalks. He said: I didn't say sidewalks, I didn't mention
sidewalks. Well, in my district there are no sidewalks. There are no sidewalks
in Cape St. Francis. I would love to be able to go to the Minister of Municipal
Affairs for each town in my area that's around a school zone and ask for funding
for sidewalks.

Just
recently, we changed the ratio from where it was 90-10 in most towns and now
it's 50-50. Again, that's an issue. I will probably, more than likely, be going
and telling my towns that I hope this is something that you applied for,
sidewalks, because I'd love to see sidewalks in the District of Cape St.
Francis.

Mr.
Speaker, the situation that I have and many rural and other communities have in
this province is we don't have sidewalks. We don't have places where children
can walk. The Department of Transportation and Works and everybody does their
best to keep our roads nice and clear. They do their best with their wing on
their plow to try to keep the sides of the roads clear.

Last
year in Torbay, a little fellow was walking to school, slipped on a bit of ice
and broke his arm. He only had about less than two feet sidewalk and that was
full of ice. He slipped on it and broke his arm. He was very fortunate because
you know what he could have done? He could have slipped on it and went
underneath a car. Then, we'd be all here saying: Oh my God, we have to do
something with snow clearing or we should do something with this.

There's
a way around it. As the minister said today, he said municipalities can apply
for this. Well, a lot of municipalities can't afford to apply for it because
they just don't have the money to do it with the split now on the 50-50 versus
the 90-10 that they had before.

There's
a solution. The solution is simple. The solution we're asking for here today is
that government just have a look at this policy and think about it as a safety
issue, think about it as a way that we're protecting our children. When we go in
the mornings and parents leave in the morning and go to work or they want to get
their child to school, they get up and get them breakfast and everything else –
God love them; I know they're excited about getting to school, probably excited
about running up to catch a friend or anything at all like that and accidents do
happen.

If an
accident can happen and we have a mechanism to stop that accident from
happening, we should do it, especially when it comes to the safety of our
children. The Minister of Education time after time – I'm not going to read them
all – but every one of them he talks about the safety issue on children, small
children going to school. He presented petition after petition after petition,
saying that it's all about the safety issue. Yet, when he becomes Minister of
Education, the safety issue is not there anymore. It's unbelievable.

Last
week when we talked about school zones, and I go back to this because any time
we do anything with safety – and I applaud the Member opposite for that
resolution last week, because in my district, like I told you last week, I do
have 30-kilometre zones. But it's not only about my district; it's about all
Newfoundland and Labrador. It's about all districts in this province.

We
talked about safety. So what you look at, if we change the kilometres to 30
kilometres just in school zones alone, then we're not covering the full 1.6. We
won't be covering handy to the full 1.6. I mean, if it was 30 kilometres going
through all these communities, okay, then it would help parents to be able to
have a little bit of assurance at least with traffic.

Everyone
knows it and the Minister of Justice knows it, that we got a problem with
enforcement. Every school zone, we'd all love to have a RNC officer or a RCMP
officer there every morning to make sure that our children get to school safe
and sound. But that's not reality; that's not what happens every day. Our law
enforcement officers, they're doing their utmost; they're doing their best to
ensure that our children do get – but they can't be everywhere.

When you
look at what I said earlier, on the first day of school the RNC put 170 fines
out there. The people are just not listening and not avoiding – if this was just
in school zones alone. I talked last week about people, even when children are
on the buses, about the safety and people going past and passing the school bus.

Look, 90
per cent of the people in this province agree with me, agree 100 per cent what I
am saying here today, that our children should be able to get to school safe and
sound. Everyone – and I'm sure every Member across the way would agree with me
in saying about how they should get to school safe and sound.

That's
why this Member brought in this resolution. That's why I wanted to support this
resolution and so did the Member for CBS. We've heard from parents, we've heard
from grandparents and we've heard from educators. Look, you have to do something
about this 1.6.

An
example in Torbay alone – I'll just give you an example – North Pond Road is a
road that's pretty close to Torbay elementary. In order for the children to get
to school in Torbay, they have to go down North Pond Road and they have to cross
Torbay Road. On an average day on Torbay Road, there are 17,000 cars travelling.
I would say from where I'm talking about North Pond Road to the elementary
school, the sidewalk, which doesn't exist, but the shoulder of the road is no
more than 18 inches to 24 inches.

In the
wintertime when snow clearing is getting done, that road and that little
sidewalk that the children have to walk along is nothing but ice. I'm telling
you right now that every day the children have to walk that short area, and I
hate to say this, but their safety – I'll go with safety, I'm not going to go
the way I was going to go, because God forbid – is in jeopardy.

Mr.
Speaker, there's a solution for this; it's something we should be doing. Like I
said earlier, there's no cost. We can't come up with a cost on this. Letting our
children on a bus is a simple solution. Putting our children on a bus is a
simple solution.

The
minister just talked about courtesy busing. In my district, I have parents – and
I'm not sure, but I think I heard him today say he only has one that needs to be
resolved. Well, I don't know where he got that. There must be one –

AN HON. MEMBER: One in one classroom.

MR. K. PARSONS: That's right, one in one
classroom. I know and I talked to parents every day about courtesy – because
every child inside the 1.6-kilometre zone, if you talk to parents, they'll say:
Any chance of getting them courtesy busing?

AN HON. MEMBER: I have 30 on one street.

MR. K. PARSONS: He has 30 on one street.

I don't
know where the minister came up with that figure today at all. That's just not
even realistic. Courtesy busing is okay when there are seats available. If there
are no seats available on that bus, there's no courtesy busing.

I have
no problem. If the seats are available and you can do courtesy seating, do it.
Yes, 100 per cent support it, go do it. But the issue is how about if there are
no seats available on that bus? Can you do courtesy busing? No. So the intent of
what we tried to do here today and what the minister has put forward today are
two completely different things. They are completely opposites because, listen,
if courtesy busing is there, there's no problem. There's no problem in some
areas where if the bus goes by and a child has to walk back to go the bus stop,
it gets done. I know it gets done in my district and it gets done in nearly
every district. That's how courtesy busing works, but if the seat is not
available there's no courtesy busing.

This is
about safety. This is about ensuring children get to school safe. What we
brought in here today and what the hon. Member for Conception Bay East – Bell
Island brought in here today is about making sure our children get to school
safe. That's all we wanted here today.

The
minister, who presented petition after petition after petition and named every
community that he could possibly name in the province, said: I urge the House of
Assembly for these petitioners, for the safety of all these children, I urge
that government – that's when he was over here as a Liberal and an NDP. He was
in both different parties, so he was in both then. In both cases he presented
petition after petition and now since he became minister he had a change of
heart.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can't remember now.

MR. K. PARSONS: No, he had a change of heart,
I think. It's not that important anymore.

But it
is important. It's important to all the families, it's important to all the
children. It's important to me who doesn't have a child that's in this, because
I hate to see anyone going to school or little children on the side of the road.
I drive by them; I'm sure we all do. I'm sure we drive by children in the
morning and say: b'y, I hope that little fellow now doesn't run out in front of
me. I hope this one doesn't run out in front of me.

I know
when I see a little child on a bike, it always scares me. Honestly, it really
does scare me because you don't know what they're going to do sometimes. They
could jot across; buddy could call out across the way or whatever.

The same
thing when they're walking to school. Listen, we're not talking – it's an
exciting time, your friend is here or your friend is there, and sometimes you do
things without even thinking. Children do things without even thinking.

This is
a simple, simple solution, letting children on a bus to get to school safe and
sound. That's what we're asking for.

Times
have changed. It's not like it was year's ago when there was someone home,
either the grandparents or somebody to drive. I know my mother and the lady next
door used to drive us back and forth to school all the time. There was no bus
where I lived. Anyway, they did that all the time, but that has changed. Two
family members are working and children are on the road and it's not safe.
Please, just think about this and bring in the 1.6 for all children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank
you for the opportunity to speak here today. Before I go any further, I just
want to congratulate Jim Lester for winning the seat last night, Mr. Speaker. I
always said that democracy is the best thing we could have. If not, we'd be out
with guns and fighting each other.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: When people speak, the people
speak. Congratulations, and the people have spoken on that.

Mr.
Speaker, I just heard the Member for Cape St. Francis. Safety of all children is
a priority for everybody in this House. How many years were you in government
and you didn't change it? How many years were you in government?

That's
the difference here, Mr. Speaker. They're starting now already. One of the
issues we did – and I know as minister of Service NL with the buses. You were
talking about your buses being passed by cars. One of the legislations that we
brought in when I was minister of Service NL is that if a car passes and you
took the licence plate, the car could be fined. So we strengthened the
legislation for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: We increased the fines for
anybody who put in false information about the inspections for the buses, Mr.
Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: So anybody who says we
haven't done anything here for these to try for the inspection, Mr. Speaker,
it's just not true. I say to the Member for St. Cape Francis, saying it was
50-50 –

MR. K. PARSONS: Cape St. Francis.

MR. JOYCE: Cape St. Francis?

MR. K. PARSONS: Yeah.

MR. JOYCE: Sorry.

You said
it is 50-50 for sidewalks. For how many years was it 90-10 and you still never
got it done? Yet, you're saying to the Minister of Education, why didn't you get
it done now? You had your opportunity. You didn't do it. You didn't do it.

Mr.
Speaker, I will just go on to talk about the Member for Conception Bay East –
Bell Island talking about safety. Let's get it straight, I don't think anybody
in this House wouldn't do what's best – in the opportunity to get the kids safe.
No one and I don't mean anybody.

Conception East – Bell Island –

AN HON. MEMBER: Conception Bay East – Bell
Island.

MR. JOYCE: Okay, whatever it is, Mr.
Speaker.

Let me
tell you a story, Mr. Speaker. There's a place on the North Shore of the Bay of
Islands – and he's talking about road safety and kids. He was the minister of
Transportation and Works. There's a place called plant hill. The ruts were eight
to 10 inches – the number one priority for the West Coast that school buses for
kids from K to 12 were going on in the morning and in the afternoon.

Guess
what? Two days before the tender was going to close for that hill – take a
guess, Mr. Speaker – he took the funding and put it out in Port au Port for
political reasons. I can tell you, I don't forget that.

Mr.
Speaker, I called him. When he took the tender from the Bay of Islands I called
him, I pleaded with him. I said: It's about 300 metres, I won't say a word, do
this hill. Do this hill, that's all I ask and I won't say a word. Guess what? He
wouldn't even take my phone call. So if you want to go laughing over there about
safety, you have a record. You have a record, let me tell you.

The
Members opposite are talking about the bus issue. What a great issue. The bunch
over here are bad people, all of a sudden, we won't change it. Guess what, Mr.
Speaker? Take a guess. I have a memory; I've been around for a while.

I
remember there was a poll on VOCM: Do you think the 1.6 should be changed? The
Member for Mount Pearl –Southlands stacked the poll, him and Sandy Collins,
saying government is doing good. You stacked that poll. You were a part of the
government that stacked that poll. You and Sandy Collins stacked the poll.

All of a
sudden, they're the big saviours of the school bus when they put all this out,
Mr. Speaker. So here you go.

MR. LANE: (Inaudible) briefing note.

MR. JOYCE: I might read a briefing note,
but I can tell you one thing: I wouldn't stack a poll for people with
disabilities. I'll tell you that right now, the Member for Mount Pearl –
Southlands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: You have a history, too,
Sandy Collins has a history and all the caucus Members also have a history on
it, Mr. Speaker. They have a history on this also.

Mr.
Speaker, I want to talk about the courtesy busing out in the Bay of Islands. I
understand what the minister is saying; there is courtesy. Sometimes all the
children can't get on. I understand that with the courtesy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, can you ask the
Member – I don't even know where he's from.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Can you just ask him, Mr.
Speaker? I know it's touchy, but the courtesy busing does work.

I agree
with the Member for Cape St. Francis, not every child can get on the courtesy
busing. I agree. They can't do it; 100 per cent, they can't get on. Once we look
at the cost it, Mr. Speaker – and I understand it's hard to charge off the cost.

The
courtesy busing, I know, in a lot of our places –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE:
I know that I've dealt a number of years with the courtesy busing. If it's not
full, Mr. Speaker, what they would do is anybody who's inside, they would pick
up. I know it worked.

Mr.
Speaker, I have to say, the courtesy busing was also in when the former
government was in. I have to say that. That was there also, so it's just the
continuation of it.

Mr.
Speaker, on many occasions they asked to do a scan across Canada. The scan that
you have across Canada: In Newfoundland and Labrador, K to six is 1.6; from
seven to 12, it's 1.6. This is very important because they always say: Why don't
we get with the rest of Canada? Why don't we do what the rest of Canada is
doing? Nova Scotia, 1.6, that's from K to six; New Brunswick, 1.6; PEI, 1;
Ontario, 1.6; Manitoba, 1.6; Saskatchewan, 1; Alberta, 2.4; British Columbia, 4;
Quebec, 1.6. It's on par with the rest of Canada for the school busing issue.

When you
go to grades seven to 12 for the high school: Newfoundland and Labrador 1.6;
Nova Scotia, 3.6; New Brunswick, 3.2; PEI, 1.6; Ontario, 3.2; Manitoba, 1.6;
Saskatchewan, 1.5; Alberta, 2.4; British Columbia, 4.8; and Quebec, 2. Mr.
Speaker, when you look at the busing we're below par – on par with the K to six
and we're well below when you go seven to 12. We're well above it.

I say to
the Members opposite – and I'm being honest here – if we all had the money to do
everything, we'd have it done. You can't say you put a price, but there's a
priority somewhere with the courtesy busing. If it was easy to do, it would have
been done.

The
Opposition should have done it, if it was easy to do, Mr. Speaker, when they
were in government. We understand the complexity of it. Any government that's in
place, they try their best. There's no one in this House of Assembly who wants a
kid to be hurt – absolutely no one. It's just a matter of how can we come up and
accommodate all the children. I know I heard the minister mention, earlier, up
to 0.4 you can't even drop people off; the bus won't even stop there anyway, so
we're looking at a 1.2 zone for that.

I heard
the Member for Cape St. Francis. There are people out my way and they're rural,
too. There are a lot of rural areas in the Humber – Bay of Islands – a lot of
rural areas. Mr. Speaker, we understand this comes with the education; people
have to slow down.

Transportation and Works also are doing a great job on the roads. It is a
substantial cost. I don't want to put a cost on anybody's injury because any
injury for any kid costs too much but, Mr. Speaker, if you follow through the
pattern over the years, the 1.6 is standard all across Canada.

I know
the City of Corner Brook, for a number of years around the schools and around
the walking areas, put in sidewalks. I know in rural Newfoundland you can't do
it. I'll be the first to admit it, you can't do it. We have to find a solution.
We have to find some solution, Mr. Speaker. I understand and I support the
minister's amendment to the motion for people with disabilities and people that
may need the courtesy busing for special needs. I understand that and I support
that 100 per cent.

Mr.
Speaker, when you look at all the issues facing us and we look at this motion
today, I still have to ask the question: Why wasn't it done in the 12 years? The
Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island was the minister of Transportation
and Works, he was in Cabinet. You're the one who sat around the table and said:
Okay, what's our priority? Was this a priority for you then? Was it a priority
for you then and you just couldn't get it done? You just couldn't get it done,
so it wasn't a priority for the rest of your government.

When the
Leader of the Opposition stands up, we're going to say it wasn't a priority for
you because you didn't support the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
I'm going to say to the Opposition House Leader, you didn't support the Member
for Conception Bay East – Bell Island. It was his priority and he couldn't get
his own colleagues to support him. You couldn't support – he couldn't do it.

Mr.
Speaker, the only difference here of what I'm saying is that we understand the
parameters. It's always been said – we heard it here a couple of times today
saying what's going on across Canada, when they're talking about a few issues
that were brought up here today. We are on par –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible) do it.

MR. JOYCE: I'd love to be able to do it.
I'd love to be able to do everything everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador
needs. I'd love to be able to do it. I'll be the first one to do it.
Politicians, by nature, love to help people out. If we didn't, we wouldn't be
here in this House. We all know that.

There
are parameters you're put in place with. The Member for Conception Bay East –
Bell Island just stated that he couldn't get it done in Cabinet, that he
couldn't have had the support in Cabinet to do it. That says a lot about his
government, Mr. Speaker, when the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island
stands up, takes the rest of his Cabinet colleagues and throws them under the
bus; that it's his priority, but not the rest.

Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to sit down because I know I have a few Members that may want
to have a few words after, so I'm going to leave a bit of time there for them.

I have
to say that I'm going to support the amendment that the Minister of Education
and Early Childhood Development put in, Mr. Speaker. Also, we love to be able to
do everything we can in the House of Assembly; we'd love to be able to do
everything possible. I'll say if there are things we can't do, we have to
mitigate it through factors such as widening the roads they walk on. If it's
during the winter, ensuring that the plows go out a bit earlier with a bit of
extra salt and sand in those areas. We have to do whatever we can to mitigate
and try to keep people safe.

Mr.
Speaker, I'll take my seat now. I'm just glad to be able to speak to it because
this has been a major concern for me for a long, long time because I've worked
with it. Last year I even worked with the principal of the school in Lark
Harbour to try to get an extra route on the bus.

So it's
very, very important, Mr. Speaker, that we work on mitigating the safety
concerns. I just want to say to the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell
Island, now that you've thrown all your colleagues under the bus, there they
are, you can look at them right now and say you didn't support me to get the
buses done because, obviously, your government didn't make it a priority.

Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

I'm
happy to stand and speak to this issue today of school busing. I have to say I'm
very disappointed that the Minister of Education did not support the private
Member's motion as it stood, because the private Member's motion as it stood had
to do with changing a policy that is dangerous.

It's
fine for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment to stand and talk
about other places in the country who have similar distances, similar policies –
some with further distances, some with less distances – but we have to make
policy for our situation here in this province. I don't know if the provinces
he's talking about have sidewalks out in those areas where maybe are similar to
ours, rural areas. I've been there; they do have sidewalks.

We can't
compare; we have to look at our situation. Our situation is such that the
minister here, in the amendment that he's made, talks about where pupils are in
primary and elementary schools, that they would have special consideration and
students with disabilities and students who would otherwise not have a safe
walking route to school. I'm not sure what that definition is. In the original
motion, it talks about the needs of even students who are high school students.

I have
to point out. We're forgetting some of the realities of this province and that's
not only injuries that have happened, but deaths that have happened. In the
memory of children who have actually been killed – in September, we had a
17-year-old student walking to school in Cow Head who was killed. That's what
we're dealing with. That's what we are trying to deal with. The minister, by
bringing in his amendment, is maintaining the policy and I can't accept the fact
that he's maintaining the policy. He's maintaining the policy which is in a way
that will only be a band-aid solution because there are all kinds of ways in
which the courtesy seating is not even working, which has been pointed out by
some of my colleagues.

It's
most disturbing. I have to point out, as one of my colleagues has done,
especially the Member for Cape St. Francis, that the current Minister of
Education has certainly changed in many ways. I was going to say he changed his
colours. Yes, he changed his colours because when he first spoke to this issue
in this House of Assembly, he was a Member of our caucus, he was an NDP Member,
and he asked a question to the Minister of Education at that time, stating that
the policy needed to be modernized to meet today's needs. Then he talked about
what those needs were and why the policy needed to be modernized. He presented a
petition in this House as an NDP MHA and spoke to that need to have it changed.

Later
on, after a study had been done by the PC government and a review had been done
and the government did not pay any attention to things that were in the review,
the current minister came out publicly at that time calling on the minister to
change the policy. Not to dance around it, not to do band-aid treatments with
it, but to change it based on the findings of the review that was done. He said
at that time: My major concern is that the minister has categorically stated
there will be no changes to the province's school busing system this year. That
will do nothing to allay the fears of parents for their children's safety. The
needed changes to the 1.6-kilometre policy must be made before this coming
winter, so he said when he wasn't minister.

We have
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment blaming the Official
Opposition for what they didn't do; that's fine. The two of them can fight with
each other. I was never in government, but our policy has been straightforward
and never changed in the years that we've been dealing with this issue. Our
policy has always been that the 1.6-kilometre policy has to change.

One of
the things going on right now in the media is the Minister of Education saying
that he does not have responsibility. The responsibility is in the hands of the
school board and now he's adding municipalities for snow removal and sidewalks.

I want
to point out, because the public knows this, the parents who have been putting
petitions in, the parents who have been speaking out publicly they know this,
that under the Schools Act, 1997, the
province's school boards are responsible for a system of transportation of
students to and from schools – a system. They're not responsible for the policy.
The powers of the minister say that the minister is responsible for policy. It's
not the school board that's responsible for policy. The 1.6-kilometre rule is a
policy of this government, set by the government, set by the minister.

We have
a real problem here because we have the minister saying he doesn't have a
responsibility for the policy and he does. We have the school board who is
responsible for a system of transportation of students to and from schools.

I want
to use an example; it's not from my district. I will be quite above board; it's
an example from the District of the MHA for Mount Pearl – Southlands, where the
two policies are clashing, where parents are really caught in a conundrum
because of the two policies clashing – or the two jurisdictions clashing, not
policies, the jurisdiction of school boards being responsible for a system of
transportation to students to and from schools.

Let's
take a student who has a courtesy seat, and this is the example from Mount Pearl
– Southlands. If that student stands in front of her house to be picked up by
the school bus, it will put her, distance wise, outside of the 1.6 kilometres
the bus is allowed to travel or she's allowed to be under; however, if she
crosses over a major four-lane road to the other side, which she has to do, she
now will be over the 1.6 kilometres and will be picked up. It's stupid; I mean,
it's absolutely stupid.

You have
the decision of the school board about where that child has to pick up the bus
in the courtesy seat, being dictated to by the 1.6-kilometre rule. The policy of
the government does affect how the school board creates the system of
transportation.

The
system of transportation just doesn't mean the buses and who the buses are and
who gets the contracts; it also means the routes that are followed. Routes that
are followed are affected by the 1.6-kilometre rule of the government. I find it
most disingenuous, to put it mildly, for the minister to be saying the things
that he's saying publicly.

People
know the difference. They know that it is government's responsibility. This
amendment is only playing around with it; it is not changing the policy itself.
It's the policy that needs to be changed.

Government says they're concerned, that they're concerned about the safety. They
say they're concerned about our children, but we actually have the Minister of
Municipal Affairs basically saying that sometimes it's difficult and priorities
have to be set. What priorities is he talking about in this situation, the
priorities of saving money on the backs of children who may end up being injured
or killed? This is how serious this situation is.

I was
really glad that the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island brought this
private Member's motion to the floor. I would have thought we all would have
said we've got to try to work on this. I would have thought that the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development would have said: I want to sit down
with school councils. I want to sit down with municipalities. I want to sit down
with the two school boards. Let's try to sit and see how we can work this out.
For him to stand here and say it's the municipalities' faults because they don't
have sidewalks –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper): Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL: – or it's their fault because
they don't do good snow clearing, when we know the difficulties that the rural
communities have in just trying to keep their towns going, let alone put
sidewalks in place without help from the provincial government.

Let's be
open here. Let's say what the reality is. I mean, the roads we're talking about
– and the Members for there can say it. The road, for example, in Portugal
Cove-St. Philip's, the road they're talking about is a provincial road. The
province has responsibility for the sidewalks. The roads, I'm sure, in the Cape
St. Francis District are provincial roads we're talking about. So the province
has the responsibility.

It's
most disingenuous of the minister to stand and lay the responsibility on the
shoulders of the school. What we're talking about is roads that are the
provincial government's responsibility. The road that young man was killed on in
September was a provincial road. That's the reality. So the province does have
responsibility. The minister has a responsibility. The Cabinet has a
responsibility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL: They all have a
responsibility and they are reneging it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

They're
reneging that responsibility, and that's what this amendment is doing. It is
reneging government's responsibility.

As I
said in the beginning, it's no sense telling me about what the policy is in
British Columbia or Ontario or Quebec. We have to look at our reality here in
Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to look at the situation for our students. We
have to look at things like – even if we look at something like the shoulders of
our highways. The shoulders of our highways are way too narrow, yet children are
walking on government roads with those narrow shoulders. I think the Member for
Cape St. Francis talked about that.

In
comparison here in the province, you compare the highway going through Terra
Nova to the rest of the Trans-Canada and there's a difference in the shoulders.
That's a reality. Under federal jurisdiction, the road that's built under the
federal jurisdiction has wider shoulders.

Even
looking at what is it that needs to be done? Sit and talk. Talk with the school
councils, talk with the municipalities, talk with the school board. We've got to
work this one out.

As was
pointed out, again, I think by the Member for Cape St. Francis, the courtesy
seating; even if that was the answer, which I don't think it is, it's not even
working right now because there aren't an adequate number of seats sometimes to
meet the needs. That is the reality. So let's not get into the murky area of
discussing the courtesy seats.

The
reality is we want the policy changed. The reality is the Minister of Education
and Early Childhood Development when he was not in government also wanted the
policy changed. Why isn't he working for that now? Why isn't he now saying the
policy has to be changed and I'm going to fight inside of Cabinet and see how we
can get this policy changed? I'm going to stand for the parents and the children
just like I said I was doing when I was a Member of the NDP and when I was a
Member of the Liberal Party when it was in Opposition. Why isn't he standing for
the parents and the children now?

This is
the question that parents have. This is a question the members of the school
councils have. We have to make sure that we don't have – in 2014, for example,
talking about high school students, the boy that was hit in December in CBS was
15 years old. I bet the amendment the minister has here would not cover the
situation for that boy. Who defines who's safe and who's not safe? You can't
leave it up like that.

A mother
in CBS who spoke about her children no longer being eligible to ride the bus to
their elementary school because of a change in the enforcing of the
1.6-kilometre rule, and her home a fraction of a kilometre within the 1.6
kilometres; that's not good enough, that's why it's not working.

When he
was an MHA not in government, the minister stood up and talked about the
changing times. Well, we certainly have changing times in CBS. When I was a
child and we spent time in Topsail in the summers, you were safe on the Topsail
Road but, good heavens, we're not safe now. Nobody is safe. Yet children have to
walk without sidewalks in CBS to get to school.

I could
go all around the province, just like the minister did when he was not in
government, and name all the areas that this affects. We know it; we know what
the dangers are. I'm just so disappointed in government that they could not have
supported this and acknowledged that they really need to look at changing the
policy.

Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Stephenville – Port au Port.

MR. FINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank
you for the opportunity to rise today and speak to the private Member's
resolution as presented by the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

I have a
short amount of speaking time, being Private Members' Day and the duration of
the clock here, but I want to highlight a few things. For those just joining us,
we're talking about school busing. More specifically, the 1.6-kilometre rule and
busing within that limit. The Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island is
proposing that, essentially, we eliminate that rule and, in turn, accommodate
all of the students in the province who live within the 1.6 kilometres from a
school.

Just to
point out to the Member opposite, who I think should be aware – having spent a
number of years in government and the numbers have changed – we currently have
some 66,000, almost 67,000 students in Newfoundland and Labrador enrolled in our
school system. Approximately 80 per cent of this figure is currently bused each
day to school at an annual cost to government of around $58.5 million. That's
just to put in context what we spend on school busing and the sheer amount of
students that we do bus. Those students fall anywhere outside the 1.6-kilometre
arrangement living within the school.

As was
alluded to, we do have a courtesy seating policy. As the amendment to this
current private Member's resolution stands, we're looking at giving priority to
courtesy seating, specifically with those who there may be some risk of safely
getting to and from schools.

I
understand the intent of the private Member's resolution. Certainly, the intent
is to look at safety and what we can do as a government to ensure that our
children are getting back and forth to school each day in a safe manner. But
what we're asking for here, the elimination of this rule, there's been much
debate. It happens every year.

Mr.
Speaker, I think as far back as I can remember – and with the exception of about
two Members in this House, I'm probably the most recent high school graduate.
I'm probably the most recent Member to ride a school bus other than the Member
for Placentia West – Bellevue. Perhaps, with great exception to the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, I'm probably the last one to ride a
school bus.

AN HON. MEMBER: Got kicked off the bus.

MR. FINN: What's that, sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Got kicked off the bus.

MR. FINN: And other Members have gotten
kicked off school buses, I'm sure.

In any
event, I can remember – since probably about my grade five year and my grade six
year – every year in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador the issue of
school busing comes up in September. Every single year it comes up. There are a
few parents who have concerns and there are a few concerns (inaudible).

I'll
tell you what, Mr. Speaker, each and every year that this issue arises – we have
great principals, great administrators. We have great folks who work for the
school boards in our province. They work with the parents. They work to ensure
that our children get back and forth to school safely.

In fact,
we have a number of bus operators. All of the bus drivers across the province, I
can guarantee you, their main objective each and every day is to ensure children
get home safely and get to school safely. In doing so, they take great pride in
it. Safety is the priority.

I want
to refer to the Member's comments. The Member for Cape St. Francis was saying
that cost shouldn't trump safety. It certainly should not, I'll say to the
Member – certainly, it should not. On that note, in looking at safety, our
government has taken some steps forward to improve safety in and around school
zones.

It was
noted by the Members opposite – just moments ago it was noted – we ensured that
if a vehicle was caught passing a school bus, we will now be able to ticket the
licence plate holder, not just the driver of the vehicle. That's certainly one
step forward.

Last
week in this House – about one week ago right now – we were debating reducing
the speed in our school zones. The current legislation, as it states, the
maximum a school zone can be in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is 50
kilometres an hour. The Member for Baie Verte – Green Bay brought in a
resolution supported by all to look at reviewing that and dropping it down to 30
kilometres an hour, and rightfully so.

The
reason the Member brought that in is to ensure safety in our school zones.
Safety is a priority for this government. That is certainly something – now that
the motion passed in the House last week – we'll certainly go on to review.

I'll say
to the Member, while safety shouldn't trump cost – I certainly understand that –
there's one thing that is true and it's true with all governments: Costs are
important. I'll say to the Member opposite, when we inherited government – we're
spending over $1 billion a year servicing our debt.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. FINN: One billion dollars, I say to
the Member.

We're
spending just over $800 million. Don't shake your head. These are facts. You can
go check the Public Accounts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Putting a cost on it –
putting a cost on children's lives.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FINN: I'll tell you what I'm
putting a cost on, I'll say to the Member. I'm putting a cost on the fact that
we inherited a situation where we spend more on our debt in this province than
we do on education. Thank you to your 12 years in government.

Thank
you to your 12 years in government. We spend more on our debt than we do on
education. You cannot deny it. It is a fact. That is a fact.

Now –
I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, lots of heckling going on here today.

AN HON. MEMBER: You touched a nerve.

MR. FINN: I touched a nerve because
these Members in Opposition, the PC Party, had 12 years to change this rule.
I'll tell you what they did. There are a lot of things they didn't change in 12
years that we took pride in doing since we took government: presumptive cancer
care could be one; changes to our Highway
Traffic Act could be another.

You want
to talk about changing school bus zones now. We have to consider costs and we
have to consider what other jurisdictions do. They took great exception. They
wanted to pick on the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development and
they said: Oh, well, he was an NDP and now he's a Liberal and the other Member
laughed. There's nothing to laugh about that.

He did
present petitions in this House of Assembly. You claim you read them. Go read
the resolutions that the Member presented and you'll see that he asked for a
review. Well, it's ironic that he asked for a review because your government
commissioned a review. Are you familiar with the $75,000 study that your
government commissioned? Are you familiar that in 2013 the then minister – I
won't say his name – commissioned a $75,000 report by Deloitte?

The
biggest take-away from the report and I'll quote the minister – you sat in
Cabinet with this minister, I'll say to the Member who presented the resolution
– “Our system is definitely a good one, comparable and better than other
jurisdictions.”

Now, in
2013, a report commissioned by your government suggests that your system was
definitely a good one; it is better and comparable to other jurisdictions.

In fact,
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development called for a review
and those were the results of the review. Good on him on calling for it and good
on you for commissioning it, but you can't have it both ways. There was nothing
wrong with the 1.6 kilometre busing policy when you were in government and
suddenly now there is.

Mr.
Speaker, we look at other jurisdictions, their own report suggests that we're
comparable. The Member for Bay of Islands, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Environment just stood on his feet and pointed to other jurisdictions. There are
only two other jurisdictions in the country that uses a busing policy that's
less than 1.6 kilometres. We're consistent with every other jurisdiction.

In fact,
when it comes to our high school students, when it comes to busing children and
youth in grades seven through 12, there's only one other province that is even
close to us in the 1.6 kilometre rule. Again, we have to consider the cost. We
have to consider safety, there is no doubt, and certainly there are a number of
measures we've taken as a government, I've alluded to previously, where safety
is a priority.

Mr.
Speaker, with that, I'm going to take a moment to talk about some solutions. The
Member for Cape St. Francis, a former mayor of Torbay, just stood on his feet in
this House –

MR. K. PARSONS: No, no, sorry, Flatrock.

MR. FINN: The former mayor of Flatrock,
my apologies.

The
former mayor of Flatrock just stood up and said the roads in Torbay, he said
this is a highway and the roads are narrow. North Pond Road and the provincial
roads are narrow, so we have to ensure students' safety.

Do you
know what? I'm going to suggest to the Member, if that's a direct concern and
that's a district that you represent, I suggest you meet with the school
principal, meet with the school district, meet with the municipality and see if
there are some things you can work around.

MR. K. PARSONS: A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been
called.

The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to
inform the hon. Member that I've met with the school, I've met with the
principal, I've met with the town, I've met with the school councils, I've met
with everybody in my district when it comes to safety issues.

Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon.
the Member for Stephenville – Port au Port.

MR. FINN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure he's
met with many others as well, and I'm sure when he was in government he had
opportunity to meet with all these people as well. He probably met with them
then. I can't understand the change now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FINN: You had your opportunity to
speak. I wanted to talk solution. I just proposed one to you. I suggest that you
meet with the school administer and you meet with the town.

I'm
going to give you an example. In my town, for example, in the Town of
Stephenville for which I live, there are some areas where there are sidewalks
and there are some areas where there are not. If they're close to a school zone,
this is a good opportunity for the schools to perhaps meet with their Member and
to have a look at some creative solutions.

The
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment pointed to some cost-sharing
ratios where municipalities can apply to perhaps create some sidewalks.

MR. BRAZIL: A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been
called.

The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's an
opportunity now for me to regroup and review exactly what's been discussed here
and clarify to the listeners and our viewers of exactly what this debate is all
about.

I want
to acknowledge my colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis, who very
eloquently outlined specifically the importance of us reviewing the 1.6, based
on the principle of safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: And that's explicitly what
this was about. This is about keeping our children safe and those who are most
vulnerable, those younger ones, those who may have mobility issues, those who
may live in specific areas where there's more of a risk from a safety factor.
They're the ones we wanted to improve safety in getting to school by reviewing
the 1.6 kilometre busing system.

I also
wanted to thank my hon. colleague over here on this side from St. John's East –
Quidi Vidi, for again outlining exactly that this is not a new discussion. That
she and her Party and the opposing Liberals, when they were in Opposition, and
we are today, see this as a very important issue.

As we're
moving closer to identifying and addressing issues like we've debated today in
the House in another bill about safety for our citizens, if it means we have to
invest money or it means we have to review policy, that's what we do. That's
what this House is about. That's why we have debate and dialogue and it's why we
make suggestions.

What we
were proposing here was about putting out that we would review a specific policy
to find a solution that better addresses the particular challenge here. And the
challenge here is about safety and it's already been outlined that it's not
something new.

Now, the
government kept saying: well, why didn't the previous administration do it, and
why didn't the previous administration do it before that? A multitude of
reasons; some are valid, some are not. Regardless of that, we're talking now –
year three you're about to move in to your reign. Why don't you start doing
something about it?

Particularly, the Minister of Education, who's somebody for years in Opposition,
continued to advocate for it. Rightfully so, no problem, hat's off. I
acknowledge that, but then when you advocate for something and get in a position
where you can change it and actually do it and live up to what you stood for,
for many years and you ignore it and try to put the blame on other avenues, or
other municipalities, or other agencies, or groups or a school district, that
then shows pure hypocrisy for exactly what your job is supposed to be and what
you were brought to do.

When you
have thousands – and we're not talking tens or hundreds, we're talking thousands
of citizens who come forward and say we have a safety issue here. We stand for
it. We have administrators saying we want to stand for something. Then to get to
a point – it's one to disagree with what we're presenting, but then to play a
game of smoke and mirrors, because that's what it is. To make an amendment so
that they can stand on their soapbox and say, oh no, no we agree with it because
we still have the word 1.6 in there, but we've got courtesy busing – which
again, a bit of education here. I have to explain to the minister, courtesy
busing already exists. It has existed for years. School districts have managed
to be able to do that and, where they could, fulfill the needs for as many
students as possible. The problem is they couldn't fulfill it for all.

The
other problem is there's no guarantee that you get to keep that seat. So you
change your whole mode of how your children get to school and you feel
comfortable for a period of time, but now all of a sudden another family moves
in who are outside the 1.6 and you get bumped out. You don't have any legal
right to that because the 1.6 policy, the outdated policy that doesn't take into
account safety and apparently from that side over there, in their perspective,
their argument, is particularly only about money. It's not about safety. It's
not about updating a policy. It's not about reviewing it to see are there better
ways of doing it. They've already admitted; it's about money.

They
literally got up and talked about children's safety is not as important as how
much money we have to spend somewhere else or how much money we have because
they inherited a particular cost on something else. That's shameful – shameful –
that we put that into that.

Yet
they'll pat themselves on the back on another policy where they'll invest money
– and rightfully so – to address a particular issue or a challenge that we have
in society or to ensure that other citizens are kept safe – and rightfully so;
good on you for doing that. You can't be picking and choosing and saying in one
case safety is important and we'll invest our monies because it's ours, but on
the other side when somebody else suggests it and does it in good faith and
acknowledging that we didn't invent this, that other people had come and
presented this prior and it wasn't done – fair enough. Now is an opportunity to
do it, particularly when people are now saying it's a bigger issue than it ever
has been because of the growth in certain areas that don't have the
infrastructure to be able to sustain that, because how we've reconfigured
schools over the last number of years so there's bigger distance, because of
infill with housing and subdivisions has had a major impact on it.

All of a
sudden the smoke and mirrors here, we're going to impose something, we're going
to make an amendment – because we can't be seen as voting down what you're
proposing because it makes too much sense and the general public would question:
Are you really committed to children and safety? Are you committed to our school
systems? We are not going to do that. We're going to use smoke and mirrors
because the average person may not know unless you use the courtesy seating,
we'll put courtesy seating.

The
person who doesn't have a kid in school yet or somebody whose kids are already
gone will say, oh, well that's good they can get a seat. Anybody who uses that,
they know, every September, the drama they go through, the fear: Am I going to
be able to get a seat for my kid? Then they know there are some who are left
out. We've got examples of two in a family: one can get the courtesy seating and
the other can't because they fit a different category, their age category, what
class they're in. It is totally different. The minister has the proposal here on
the amendment and neglects to say we've had courtesy seating. It works to a
certain degree for certain individuals, but it doesn't guarantee safety for our
students as they're travelling. So what we've asked here is go back and look at
the policy.

Even in
my first introduction, and my colleagues here who spoke to it, they talked about
doing a whole jurisdictional scan. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Environment was very easy to get up and say oh no, other places have further
distance and all of that. I'm glad that the hon. Member for St. John's East –
Quidi Vidi said listen, we don't care about what other jurisdictions do; we care
about the safety of our children in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So we'll
find something that works here. We have a number of agencies, we have a number
of groups here, we have municipalities and we have student organizations that
would work with you to find it. We have a school district here that's been –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL: We have two school districts
here who would look to have a discussion around how is the best way that we
could address that, but that wasn't good enough for them, so they played smoke
and mirrors by trying to put in courtesy busing. The fortunate thing is people
will see through that and we know what's happened.

So what
we know now – I'm just going to recap a few things. We know the Minister of
Education has already stated he's against the review of the 1.6-busing policy to
ensure safety for all of our students travelling to school, particularly those
most vulnerable, younger and ones with mobility issues – against it. The
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment is already on record – I don't
know about the other Members. We'll see that when we come to the vote in a few
minutes about that. We already know where two of them are – two important
ministers who should have a stake in ensuring safety, particularly in our
municipalities and in our school systems.

But
that's fine; we know where the two of them are. I'm hoping there's going to be
another group over there who are going to vote a different way, but that's fine.

Let's
recap a little bit. Let's go back to how we got to this point right now and why
we thought and we felt because of the lobbying that we were getting from parent
groups, school administrators, agencies and municipalities about let's address
this now, it's an opportune time to do this and there's been a lot of work
around bus schedules, bus routes, safety on buses, all valid and important – and
hats off to the government for moving that forward.

So now
we've done all these things, all the small things to connect the dots. Now let's
connect the big dot: the safety, getting them to school.

MR. JOYCE: A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been
called.

The hon.
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE: In section 49, Mr. Speaker,
the Member just made a statement which is factually incorrect. When he makes a
statement and says I'm not concerned about people's safety in municipalities or
on roads, it's factually incorrect. I never, ever said that, Mr. Speaker. So I
ask the Member to withdraw those statements because at no time did I say I'm not
concerned about safety for the children or anybody in our municipalities or
anywhere.

I cannot
let that stand on this record.

MR. BRAZIL: I withdraw that statement
(inaudible) vote for the original proposal we put here, thank you, thank you. I
withdraw that to you now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: With his voting that, now
that makes me feel that – so I withdraw the fact that I may have inferred that
he didn't see the safety for children out there. I withdraw that.

MR. JOYCE: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper): The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I can't let it
stand in this House what that Member said. We know there's a standard practice
in this House that when you have to withdraw a statement it's done unequivocal.
It's done without any statements whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, without any
reservation.

So I ask
the Member to withdraw the statement, Mr. Speaker. It's a standard practice in
this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I
withdraw that statement.

Mr.
Speaker, again, I want to keep moving forward and say now at least I'm down to
one minister that I have to worry about seeing whether or not they are going to
support the bill that we put forward.

Mr.
Speaker, let's talk about it. In the Red Book, they had proposed: 5.3.9 Review
Busing Distances. “Current regulations deny bus service to children who live
closer than 1.6 kilometres from the school they attend. This policy has raised
safety concerns among parents, especially for younger children, and also affects
the extent to which children are able to participate in extracurricular
activities.

“A New
Liberal Government will review the distance criteria for school bus service
eligibility.”

Great,
that's great. What a great policy. I suspect people actually voted for them,
those parents who had concern, based on their intention to implement this
policy. Two-plus-years later, obviously, there's no intention at this point, but
they have an ability to do it. All they have to do is vote for this amendment
and they will have an ability to do that.

We have
them standing on their Red Book as one of their policies, key policies, key
platforms so the students would be very apt to be considered safe and parent
groups would support it. They've come back with a smoke and mirrors amendment
all based on the principle of saying, no, we're going to implement –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask
all Members to respect the fact that the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell
Island is speaking.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There's
no doubt I hit a nerve over there now because we're starting to expose exactly
what they've said in the past, what the minister said in the past, what they
stood for as a government and now exactly what they are going to implement;
totally different things, from one extreme to the other.

We talk
about that they don't talk about the reality of safety. I got a notice here, 170
tickets given out by the RNC in the Northeast Avalon on the first day of school
about safety. We don't have a safety issue in some of those areas where we don't
have sidewalks; we don't have winding roads, proper signage. All these things
that are safety oriented issues.

What we
presented here was very simplistic, but would address a particular need. It came
out of hundreds if not thousands of people petitioning us, talking to us, school
groups that we met with – and no doubt, Members over there meet with the same
school councils that we do in their respective school areas. No doubt they have
the same issues, in a lot of them. Maybe a little bit more extreme in some areas
where there are heavy growth areas or schools have been reconfigured or the
busing routes have changed, no doubt.

What we
were proposing here was something we thought would fit well with last week's –
let's go back a bit. Let's go back to last week's private Member's resolution
where it was about safety; an honourable one that we all supposed, decreasing
speed limits in school zones. So that side of the House had acknowledged there's
an issue around safety around schools. Rightfully so, that's why we all got on
this side, we spoke to it, we supported it, we voted for it unanimously. There
wasn't an issue. We figured this would be in line because the next level of that
is we can even improve it more if we minimize how many students are going to be
on those roads going to schools.

So we
have one where we lower the speed limit, if we can eliminate how many students,
the number of students there, we eliminate the risk. We thought it was an easy
flow, but for some reason somebody took it that they were going to be insulted
because their previous stance on something wasn't where they wanted it to be
now. They weren't going to advocate for realigning an existing system or finding
ways to improve the system by making some investments to improve safety.

Everyday
we're investing hundreds of millions of dollars in our education system. Our
education system is only as good as the student who gets there. The students who
get there have to be safe when they get there. That should be the first primary
objective here of any system or any government, to keep your citizens safe.

Again,
in the last week or so we've had debate on a couple of bills around safety, very
important bills. So all of a sudden we segregate – students are not as important
as any other sector of society, it's not acceptable, not acceptable. That's why
we're proposing this.

We're
flabbergasted that they would try to put smoke and mirrors up and confuse people
by putting courtesy busing. Anybody who knows what courtesy busing is knows it's
something that already exists – where it's available. Unfortunately, it's not
available everywhere. That's why we don't have a constant, continuous
safeguarding of students being able to get to school on an equitable basis.
Every day in and every day out we have parents struggling to get their kids
there, worrying about them, having to find rides for them to get home –
extracurricular, another issue, not being able to address that.

The
Liberals had all that figured out two years ago, but apparently they must have
lost the file they had on that one. I don't know who wrote the briefing note on
that, maybe it was the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment, but I
would hope he passed it on to the Minister of Education so he could read it
again and get familiar with what's happening there, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr.
Speaker, as we've proposed, we will be voting against this amendment because it
takes away from exactly what was proposed and the citizens have lobbied us to do
was to review the 1.6 kilometre busing zone so that we would have a better
equitable, safer approach to addressing the issues around safe busing for our
children going to our schools.

Mr.
Speaker, so on that note, I'll sit so we can have a vote on this important
issue.